Media and the 9/11 cover-up: BBC accused of breaking its own fairness rules


By Craig McKee

The first time I walked into the offices of my university newspaper to offer my services, I noticed a slogan on the wall that read: “Don’t cover the news, UNcover it.”

That distinction appealed to every idealistic bone in my body. There were 206 of them then, give or take. Things have settled a bit since, but I’m still idealistic to a fault. Even so, my expectations of the mainstream media – at least when it comes to the big picture items – can’t get much lower.

Instead of uncovering the news, now I’d settle for: “Don’t cover it up.”

But that’s exactly what the major media have been doing with 9/11 for nearly 11 years. They have been utterly complicit in the deception since the first moments after the North Tower was hit. And it’s not just the “corporate” media that have driven the cover-up, publicly funded media outlets have been just as guilty.

It’s one of those state funded networks that is now having its own rules used against it. Three British members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have filed three formal complaints with the venerable British Broadcasting Corporation for its biased 9/11 coverage.

Peter Drew, Paul Warburton, and Adrian Mallett are using the publicly funded television network’s own rules to highlight its failure to fairly report the facts of 9/11. The three have launched their complaints with the BBC Trust claiming that the network failed to live up to its own Royal Charter and Agreement in two documentaries released last year – The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On and 9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip. The complaints allege that the docs were not fair, not accurate, and that critical information was deliberately withheld from viewers to further an agenda supporting the official story.

The complaints have reached the highest levels of the BBC complaints process, and the complainants are now requesting a face-to-face meeting with BBC Trustees to discuss the situation. A possible result could be an apology or the screening of some documentaries with different points of view (such as films produced by AE) to balance out the record.

The BBC’s Royal Charter and Agreement states: “The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter specifies that we should do all we can “to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality” in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.”

In its Editorial Values we read: “Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences.  We will apply due impartiality to all our subject matter and will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented. We will be fair and open-minded when examining evidence and weighing material facts.”

Not even close. They haven’t even attempted to be fair.

The BBC first enraged truthers with its 2007 program 9/11 Conspiracy Files. It is filled with such blatant disinformation that it provoked a counter documentary called 9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy. This film chronicles how the BBC’s film slanted its coverage to support the official story.

Here are just a few of the issues with that BBC film:

  • The fact that the FBI didn’t have enough evidence to link Osama bin Laden to 9/11 was not mentioned
  • That FBI director Robert Mueller stated in 2002 that they had no proof that the 19 alleged hijackers were in fact on the planes that day was not mentioned
  • They relied on Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics to back the official story, rarely challenging any of his statements
  • The film stated that the U.S. was unprepared to deal with hijacked aircraft even though 67 planes had been intercepted after going off course or out of contact the year before
  • The fact that most of the steel from the towers was hauled away without being forensically tested was not mentioned
  • That the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 20 minutes before it happened was not mentioned
  • Contradictions in the Flight Data Recorder data for Flight 77 was not mentioned
  • That Israelis linked to Mossad were arrested after “chronicling” the destruction of the towers was not mentioned

This is just touching the surface. There was a lot more they “missed” and a lot of key witnesses they didn’t interview as shown in British Broadcasting Conspiracy.

If 9/11 Conspiracy Files and the Ten Years On follow-up weren’t bad enough, the BBC produced a kind of Magical Mystery Tour attack on “conspiracy theorists” in 9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip to coincide with the 10th anniversary last year.

This ugly piece of work has Irish comic Andrew Maxwell taking five people who don’t believe the official story of 9/11 on a road trip to visit the scenes of the “attacks” so he could show them the error of their ways. The film features the magic conversion of the fakest of 9/11 truthers, Charlie Veitch.

Maxwell wonders aloud at the beginning of the film about how the experience of seeing these 9/11 sights and talking to “experts” might change the views held by these kooky conspiracy theorists.

“Do they harden their opinions?” he wonders in the voice-over. “Or do they step back and realize there was real suffering here?”

Get it? People who don’t believe the official story are insensitive to, or unaware of, the suffering that occurred on 9/11. He also states that he’s “as certain and certain can be that Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks.”

AE911truth is encouraging people to write to the BBC and to Labour Party MP Tom Watson in support of the complaints. Watson is a member of the parliamentary media select committee, which has responsibility for the BBC. For details and sample letters, check here.

None of this, of course, is new. The majority of what has passed for 9/11 journalism is little more than propaganda in support of the official story. At best, basic questions are not asked, and the most obvious anomalies and inconsistencies in the official accounts are ignored or glossed over. At worst, we get a superficial and condescending dismissal of “conspiracy theories” with lip service being paid to telling the public what those theories are based on.

The only real investigative journalism on 9/11 is being done by independent journalists, researchers, and alternative news sites. For an excellent analysis of media complicity, I recommend Barrie Zwicker’s Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11.

In Canada, we have the publicly funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which also has a Charter requiring it to be fair and accurate. The CBC also showed the BBC documentaries in question as well as producing its own 9/11 programs (as part of the current affairs show The Fifth Estate) with very mixed results.

I have to say, hearing about what’s being done in the UK is giving me ideas. But that’s another story.

227 comments

  1. It would be good if other professionals, like pilots and military officers, follow suit in this campaign to counter the BBC’s propaganda.

    It can’t be stressed enough that unlike purely corporate enterprises like Fox, the BBC is very largely taxpayer funded (in the UK you have to pay a 100-pound “TV license” fee every year and this funds BBC programming) and it is literally THE LAW that the BBC News has to be fair and accurate.

    Craig, any practical reason for the new look, or you just wanted a change?

    1. Well, I’ve been thinking of changing the theme for a while. I’ve had the current one for more than a year and a half. It’s also a very commonly used WordPress theme (the 10th most popular, in fact), and I wasn’t thrilled to have a look that so many others had. I was attracted to the themes with cleaner looks and more white space. As I wrote on the last thread, the only real disadvantage I’ve found is that the widgets that take the reader to recent posts, top posts and archives are all at the bottom of each page rather than on the side. I’m not crazy about that.

      By your question, can I infer that you’re not thrilled with it?

      1. Yeah, it’s a bit plain looking, and was more user friendly with the recent posts showing up on the left sidebar close to the top of the page. But ultimately, the content of the posts is more important and is why people come to this blog to discuss real issues.😉

        1. Yes, the recent post thing is annoying, and I’m hoping it doesn’t cost me too many hits on older articles. The look is really a personal taste thing. If I were designing my own site I’d combine elements that I like, but in the WordPress templates you don’t get any themes that are perfect. I have some options for adding things like a background colour and a pic right under the blog name. As a stoned Albert Brooks said in one of my favourite movies, Modern Romance, “I’ll leave it up to me.”

      2. craig,

        off topic, but it is something i am zoning in on, and not sure where else to raise this…

        at the bottom of your pages you have a picture of the south tower tipping. the caption reads: “To believers in the 9/11 official story: If the top of the South Tower is tipping like this, what is providing the symmetrical force downwards? And why didn’t the top of the building topple to the ground? And where did the energy come from to crush the building AND turn all the concrete to powder?” all good points to be sure, but…

        do you know the source of that photo?

        i have put the same question to a&e re their various video clips and photos, and am awaiting a response..

        NO DISRESPECT MEANT. i just would like to test whether our visuals can be authenticated, is all.

        imagine this: the million to one shot comes thru and we do get someone, somewhere, to honestly investigate what really happened on 9/11. we present this or that picture or clip. the judges want to know: “what is the source of this picture or clip?” i feel we should be prepared to respond effectively. else the ny times headline will read something like this: “conspiracy theorists have no idea where their film clips came from”

      3. Dennis says on July 17, 2012 at 12:00 am:

        >”at the bottom of your pages you have a picture of the south tower tipping.”

        He then asks:

        >”do you know the source of that photo?”

        This shot of the south tower tipping was taken by Amy Sancetta for AP.

        There is another photo from another angle of the same tipping top of the south tower that is attributed to Robert Spencer of AP.

        I would think that rather than asking other people if they know where these photo’s originate, that Dennis would be capable of doing some of his own browser sleuthing.
        It took me less than ten minutes to find the answer to the names of the photographers to two shots of the south tower tip.

        I don’t want to come off as insulting here Dennis, and I hope you don’t take it that way. But access to the web means questions such as these really are at your very own fingertips.

        Of course we could always “go ask Alice…I think she’d know”…{‘White Rabbit’ always runs through my mind as these pages load..Lol}

        ww

        1. ww,

          thanks!

          re: “This shot of the south tower tipping was taken by Amy Sancetta for AP.” thanks, good to know. after reading your reply, a search for sancetta 9/11 south tower took me to her ap images page in just a minute or so, and i found the one with the south tower tipping very quickly. if you had given me the url, i could have saved even more time. not that i want you (or anyone) to do work for me, but if the work has already been done and authorities have been cited, it’s more efficient to check that out than to begin researching things from scratch.

          re: “I would think that rather than asking other people if they know where these photo’s originate, that Dennis would be capable of doing some of his own browser sleuthing.” wondering why you switched to the third person here.

          my point is this: if someone is going to offer up a photo or video clip as evidence of whatever, they have a responsibility to cite (or at least be prepared to cite) the source of that photo or video. otherwise, their credibility suffers and may even be lost.

          re: “I don’t want to come off as insulting here Dennis, and I hope you don’t take it that way.” nah.

          re: “But access to the web means questions such as these really are at your very own fingertips.” if the research has already been done, i’d rather not have to re-do it. checking url’s would be much easier, and i might even have time for a walk on the boardwalk.

          re: “Of course we could always “go ask Alice…I think she’d know”…{‘White Rabbit’ always runs through my mind as these pages load..Lol}.” well this time i was able to follow the white wabbit (ww), but my guess is that he’ll be less inclined to assist going forward😉

      4. I am sorry Dennis,

        You are absolutely right, I could have made it much more simple for you, and I will be better about such things from now on.

        I took on a few apprentices that were already fairly decent sculptors, to teach them “technique”. This was years ago now. Anyway, I would always begin with the tools. I would show them ones that I had made, and discuss their uses, and fine points on how to create a tool with the proper balance, etc.

        We would make a tool together in my shop, with my oversight.
        I would show them then how to apply the tool to the clay.

        But I always found that these students had to reach out and do it for themselves to get it right.

        And I would never leave without locking the broom and water bucket in the closet if a student were left alone in the studio.

        ww

  2. The new look is good, straight on, understated. Craig are you aware of any events, hearings, presentations etc. being held this coming sept. 11th, within reasonable travel range? all the best and keep up the good work, Glenn Bolder Rosseau Ont.

    1. Hi Glenn,

      I’m not aware of anything yet but I’ll let you know if I hear anything. And thanks for the feedback on the look. It’s funny, the first theme I used was black with red writing. Very sharp but very dark. The second one was the one I just changed. More interesting and not as dark. This one can’t be any lighter, really. One extreme to the other. Take care.

  3. I wonder what BBC’s Royal Charter and Agreement states about reporting news before it actually happens.

  4. The BBC will stone wall the A+E guys for sure but it is a good thing they are going after them for their obvious propaganda and blatant cover-up of 9/11 truth. What remains to be seen is how the BBC responds to violating it’s own rules. My bet is they don’t give a crap at all what the people think or want. They will continue along as they have been, collecting their money, lying about 9/11, and trying to maintain the illusion that the public has a say in what they do. The BBC are just as bad as our own ministry of propaganda. If I were asked to pay for the BBC I was say HELL NO I WON’T PAY.

    1. It may well stonewall, and I agree they don’t care who is criticizing them. But they can’t easily just brush aside all complaints because they have a whole mechanism in place to deal with them. They would at least want the appearance that they’re following the law. Anyway, just making the complaint points the finger at the network.

      CBC here ruled on a complaint from a citizen over the claim that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. They cited the government investigation as being one fact in support of this claim! The other point was that the video of OBL confessing had been “authenticated.” A total joke.
      I’m seriously thinking of launching a parallel complaint with the CBC over the same programs. I’d probably lose but it might offer some publicity. Couldn’t hurt, I don’t think.

  5. Yes, it’s high time the CBC was taken to task for its disgraceful abandonment of its own Journalism Standards and Practices policy when it comes to 9/11 – take a look at it here: http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/acts-and-policies/programming/journalism/

    Their violations of this policy are many in the 9/11 arena (and undoubtedly others) and I’m flabbergasted that more tax-paying Canadians haven’t filed multiple, ongoing complaints against their public broadcaster (and the CRTC) for such obvious and essentially criminal journalistic negligence. The ombudsman is obviously corrupt, as are CBC news execs like Jennifer McGuire, David Studer, Mark Harrison, probably even Peter Mansbridge (a Bilderberg attendee, after all)… Probably best to go after the Board of Directors and/or CRTC … Good luck and keep us all posted! Would enjoy seeing all the correspondence posted here…

    P.S. Love your blog, whatever the theme!

    1. Thanks very much on the blog. Would you believe I went to school with Jennifer McGuire? We were in the same journalism year at Concordia in Montreal. It would be pretty funny to cross paths again for this reason.

      1. There are too many examples to list here, but the simple fact that no mention is ever made about any questions being raised about the official 9/11 story in any of CBC’s coverage – be it local, regional or national, be it radio, TV or online – with the exception of 4 instances over 10 years (2 from the fifth estate, a 2006 segment on the former Sunday morning program, and a brief appearance last year by Barrie Zwicker confronted by the asinine and arrogant Michael Enright on his Sunday show – none of which provided any follow-up, and all mixing an equal dose of bullshit with some truth for ‘balance’) should be a bad enough offense, especially when the most recent fifth estate show admitted that a third of all Canadians don’t buy the official story… that’s 10 million people! And all we get is 4 measly mentions over 10 years. And, in addition to re-airing those hideous BBC propaganda pieces literally dozens of times, the obvious Mossad operative Jonathan Kay gets tons of airtime to spew his deceitful crap, whenever he wants.. This is responsible, proportionate coverage? Give me a break!

        Craig, If you have any specific example of decent 9/11 journalism by the CBC, I’d love to know about them.

        1. I realize now that my challenge to you to name some CBC offenses could have been interpreted as if I was defending the CBC. Quite the opposite! I was actually looking for some examples to improve my own knowledge of how the CBC has covered 9/11.

          I’m familiar with the two Fifth Estate docs, “Conspiracy Theories” (2003) and “The Official Story” (2009). The latter isn’t terrible but isn’t good either. The former is absolutely offensive.

          So when it comes to criticizing the media, including the CBC, I’m with you!

  6. excellent article, craig. i have a slightly different slant re the u.s. mainstream media (and most of the alleged alternative media, e.g., amy goodman, jon stewart ) coverage of 9/11. i would give them all an A+. why? because their actual (tho hidden) goal is to help cover up the truth while pretending to be fair and balanced. they have succeeded quite well, functioning as an extension of the federal government, and keeping the public distracted, duped, and disinterested.

    when i was in college, in the mid 70s, i did an internship at the wnew-tv channel 5 newsroom (pre-murdoch). there was a sign above the main exit door to remind reporters that “there are at least two sides to every story. how many will you get?” words to go by. or as today’s media leaders might say, “words to pretend to go by.”

    i like the clean look of the new interface but…didn’t the old site have easy access to a year-by-year archive of articles? i’m not seeing them on the new version, just the “recent posts” at the bottom.

    1. Dennis,

      I agree with everything you’ve written. I absolutely see the media as being the propaganda arm of the government for the purposes you list. And

      The archives you’re looking for are at the bottom of each page along with “recent posts”. It’s not as convenient as having them along the side, but this is a compromise I made because I liked this theme better than the others available. Every single one had something I didn’t like about it.

  7. The reason that endeavors like this are worthy is that there have been a few – albeit a quite small number – of bright spots over the years despite our lack of success in getting the mainstream history books rewritten or seeing Silverstein in jail.

    For example, when Tony Szamboti and Bob McIlvaine appeared on Geraldo’s program on Fox News, and 9/11 truth was given a fair hearing, millions of people, in a few seconds, were exposed to 9/11 truth. We’re easily talking a seven figure number of people. That’s orders of magnitude more than Richard Gage will ever reach on a speaking tour. If a typical Gage speaking tour involves 20 cities, and if there are 200 people in the auditorium at each city, that’s a whopping grand total of 4,000 people, most of whom are probably truthers already, judging by the shows of hands. So as important as Gage’s speeches might be, they will not have the impact that something like the Fox News incident will have. Yes, it was an isolated, small victory, an island in the middle of a huge ocean of propaganda, but it was a coup for our side nonetheless.

    Another similar moment was when Good Morning Fresno gave Richard Gage a fair hearing. While that was only a local/regional show, that still would have reached probably at least a six-figure number of people, if not into the low millions. Furthermore, it went viral into the hundreds of thousands of views on youtube. Of course, the Geraldo was broadcast around the nation.

    So any coup for our side, in terms of MSM fair coverage, is a good thing. This is why we shouldn’t not engage media outlets like the BBC, especially if they’re taxpayer funded and have a clause that requires fair and accurate reporting.

    Good Morning Fresno:

    Szamboti and McIlvaine on Fox News’ Geraldo:

    Geraldo follows up a few days later on Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch show:

    1. I agree we should continue to try to engage the media when possible as long as we remain realistic about the prospects of the media “breaking” the 9/11 story for us. But I also think the media need to be challenged more. They need to start answering some questions.

      1. I’m sure all of us have let go of the utopian idea, taught to us as kids – that the Media exists as some sort of independent, benevolent and objective and incorruptible public service.

        With the formation of gigantic media conglomerates in recent decades, I wonder if the idea of somehow challenging the media has become completely obsolete. After all, 6 extremely powerful and wealthy (Zionist Jewish) men now control 95% of the world’s media. I think back in 1990 it was more like 50.

        Therefore, based on the hypothesis that the Israeli Mossad was largely responsible for 9/11, why would the Zionist Jewish-owned and controlled media ever incriminate itself by answering questions let alone telling the truth? It appears they serve their superiors, not the people they report to.

      2. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” — Voltaire – one of the more famous “antisemites”.

        ww

  8. A really good article Craig, thanks and kudos.

    It is unfortunate that postmodern ‘News’ is based on Bernaysian “Public Relations” protocol.
    This has been a thorn in the side of truth and sanity for two hundred years now. This is why the western world entered the 21st century a technocratic police state. To be certain, 9/11 was a mighty booster-shot for this system.

    The real value to 9/11 Truth is it is just the beginning of deconstructing the whole Public Relations Regime. But as we all know, time is not on our side. “Events on the ground” proceed at an exponential rate…and still the greatest proportion of western populations remain in trance.

    Alas, no one knows what the future may hold – things could conceivably change on a dime.

    ww

  9. Real Reporters and Journalists still exist beyond the mainstream crap machine – right here on the Internet, we have one here in Craig McKee…and also;

    This article by Paul Craig Roberts is testament to this:

    “Washington’s account of 9/11 is the wildest conspiracy theory known to mankind. The absurdity of Washington’s account is as follows: A few Saudi Arabians without any government’s backing or that of any intelligence service outwitted not only the CIA and the FBI but all 16 US intelligence agencies, even the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, together with the intelligence agencies of all of Washington’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad, which has infiltrated every radical Muslim group.
    These humble Saudis of no known distinction or powers also simultaneously outwitted the National Security Council, NORAD, the Pentagon, Air Traffic Control, and caused Airport Security to fail four times in one hour on the same morning.”~Paul Craig Roberts – on Global Research….at this astonishingly huge URL:

    http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001RFyv6CigWlHcWAqZvWGl7d4t4AzQglKsO98TKyGierffaGbnoVsZAEp4Rz8wFzI0aWcS2ei7LtpwtpLDDFdcTr6n-zdfvMjy52MbTISbh8jn4P0xVn3gH4EVbNLgnNKCErMlFAxNr3imsZgTr5a7RUPktElEXZAnEQHh0AmEKUQ=

    ww

  10. “Do they harden their opinions?” he wonders in the voice-over. “Or do they step back and realize there was real suffering here?”

    I was so disappointed and in fact felt betrayed when Maxwell took part in this program. The guy is as sharp as a tack and he never used to hold back when discussing “US imperialism” or dirty politicians but to approach the subject of 9/11 the way he did (that coupled with a mixture of weak “truthers” asking the wrong questions and an obvious shill) and make the above government loyalist soundbite leads to the following possibilities

    1. He sold his soul to further his career

    2. He’s been reading the likes of 911Myths and Popular Mechanics instead of getting his hands dirty with the “kook” literature.

    3. See above

    Can the worldwide mass media be challenged by the public in that they have to admit/correct their “mistakes”? Or does this solely apply to publically owned bodies like the BBC?
    If they fail to do so, is there an avenue whereby their failure to correct these “mistakes”, can be pursued?

    1. I’ve been wondering the same thing (whether media can be held accountable). Ever since I heard about the BBC complaints I’ve been thinking about how major media can be put on the spot. My first thought (as I mentioned in the article) was to launch complaints with our CBC, although I have no expectation of this being taken seriously. Past complaints have been turned down even though they were right on the money.

      I’ve been reading some past complaints against the CBC, including one that was appealed all the way to the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission). The commissioner just rubber stamped the ridiculous verdict of the CBC Ombudsman, which stated that it’s okay to say that Osama bin Laden “killed 3,000 people” because the 9/11 Commission said so – and there was a confession video (the fact that it is an obvious OBL impersonator wasn’t mentioned in the decision).

      In Canada, the CRTC governs all broadcasting, not just when it’s publicly funded. So I imagine complaints could be launched against other outlets as well. The likely outcome, however, is that they would be turned down. So I think some way would have to be found to make use of this to bring attention to the cause.

      As for Maxwell, I pick number one.

      1. I actually wrote e-mails to most of the major US and British media with a link to NSA years ago. Only one, Channel 4 (English channel) got back to me.

        Phonecalls are the best option. Preferably recorded without their knowledge at first, then warn them the second time that you are recording.

        It would be very> interesting to see how they would react if say all of the contributors to this forum and friends of friends on other forums picked a report, documentary or whatever and simultaneously phoned and wrote an e-mail of complaint. I mean, phonecalls are more unnerving for these people if there are scores of them, but if a call can’t be made, the very least all of us could do is send off an e-mail, ya know?

        I read of a protest a while back here in Spain (or France?) where people were pissed off with their exorbitant electricity bills and the lack of feedback and control over these buggers so a group of consumers got together and set up a forum. They invited all those pissed at their energy suppliers and waited until they had say 1000 members. They phoned the energy suppliers and complained about the pricing and treatment. They got the same old, same old. We’ll get back to you yada, yada.

        The next day they picked the same time and simultaneously cancelled their accounts and moved to another, warning the new company what had just
        happened.

        Now that is a protest that works.

        Even if 30 or 40 people got organized to mass complain about the shite that passes for “news”, we’d at least be a pain in their ass.

        By the way Craig, I like the new format.

        1. OSS,

          Your Canadian link is good for print issues, but for broadcast (other than the CBC) there’s the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. The main private networks are members of this organization.

          I like the idea of going after a network, but I’d like to do more research on what has been done before plunging ahead. In the case of the BBC, I want to find out more about the current complaints and what these three gentlemen went through to get to the stage they’re at.

          I also think it’s important to make the complaint specific. We can’t just say they are biased in how they cover 9/11, we have to point to a particular report or program and show what content is false, misleading, or biased. I’m doing that now with the CBC coverage.

          But let’s continue to look at what we can do.

      2. I also think it’s important to make the complaint specific. We can’t just say they are biased in how they cover 9/11, we have to point to a particular report or program and show what content is false, misleading, or biased. I’m doing that now with the CBC coverage.

        But let’s continue to look at what we can do.

        Oh yeah, that’s what I had in mind. Pick one specfic, undeniable issue that they can’t wriggle out of (such as the OBL wordplay you mentioned earlier), stick to that one issue and hound them on it.

        The “print” (and online) media may be the most accessible? And yes, I’m 100% behind approaching this the way you say. I’d be very interested in how those guys reached that stage.

        1. The print people might be more accessible, but they don’t have the same obligations to serve the public good (public airwaves and all that). Broadcasters have complaint procedures in place that they’ve committed to following; newspapers have a letters to the editor section and that’s it.

      3. “newspapers have a letters to the editor section and that’s it.”

        Even so, if the editor or reporter responsible is sent 30 or 40 e-mails a day and 15 – 20 phonecalls (not nasty, pestering calls but repeated, reasoned communications), they’ll at least get the message that their lies are being monitored.

        Maybe I’m being naieve or optimistic on this but it would certainly break the monotony and I know from experience that nothing unites people more than confronting “the man” 🙂

        1. No, it wasn’t the Shainbaum one. That one stopped with the Ombudsman, I believe. I’d have to check who made the similar complaint that went to the CRTC (I hope I kept the link somewhere).

      4. I certainly (and I know others would too) be interested in reading any and all complaints about CBC coverage of 9/11, especially if they were pursued with any vigour – no harm in having that stuff out there, so any links would be most helpful!

  11. Here are a few links to “watchdogs” and offices of complaint

    BBC

    http://www.howtocomplain.com/info/Wizard-Media.shtml

    BBC and other British channels (includes phone numbers)

    http://www.lgtu.org.uk/media/inaccurate-reporting.html

    http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index5b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=122

    Australian media

    http://www.crc.nsw.gov.au/media_releases/archive/documents/making_a_complaint_to_the_australian_media

    Canadian press

    http://www.newspaperscanada.ca/about-newspapers/press-complaints

    CNN

    http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv/

    FOX News/FCC (telephone numbers)

    http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/contact-the-fcc/

    http://www.fcc.gov/guides/broadcast-journalism-complaints

    ABC News

    http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complaints.htm

    If you guys are up for it we could pick just one of these bitches (BBC?) and see how we go?
    Pick a day a couple of weeks from now and go on the attack. Start off with e-mails and then phonecalls. Worth a shot?

  12. Some people stands out from the crowd.

    Some people follow their conscience, and are loyal to ‘the oath’ they make.

    Some people believe that Truth and Honesty is infinitely more important than ‘ambitions’.

    Some people deserve through their actions to be known by a much wider audience.

    Here, for example, is such a man:

    Cheers

  13. drake: hero or slick gov’t agent? i suspect the latter.

    first clue: drake’s saying that the post-9/11 nsa/white house surveillance arrangement was “designed to deal with the terrorist threat and that was UNDERSTANDABLE” [emphasis added]. the subtext here of course is that drake buys into (and is effectively selling) the official 9/11 fairy tale. to me this alone destroys his credibility.

    second clue: he speaks favorably of julian assange, a notorious 9/11 anti-truther whose situation drake says, is “similar to what i went thru.” i would add that they both spew similar anti-truth messages re 9/11, tho drake’s methodology is much more subtle (see paragraph above) than the assange approach for which see e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-kSuuJrzMo

    third and even more subtle: drake is indirectly publicizing how effed up your life will become if you dare challenge the power brokers. e.g., “you will pay a price if you speak truth to power of if the government doesn’t like you.” and “if you speak out…we’re gonna hammer you and hammer you hard.” whistleblowers beware! further, his presenting these threats as if he is on the right side of the fight is to me a very effective way to (a) get people on our side to listen, (b) get the govt’s message across, and (c) thereby induce a chilling effect on our speech. in sum, drake’s message is that since the constitution is in fact gone, we’d all better shut our mouths about–9/11, perpetual war, the surveillance state, torture, extraordinary rendition, suspension of habeas corpus, etc.–or be ready to pay a very heavy price.

    my two cents.

    craig–is there no search function here on your new interface or am i missing it? i wanted to search out what others here have said about assange, but don’t see a way to do that. can you advise? thanks!

    1. dennis says:

      >”drake: hero or slick gov’t agent? i suspect the latter.”

      Yes Dennis, I agree with your assessment of Drake here – he is the same subtle agenteur as Susan Lindauer [X-CIA asset] Their stories of grief could just as well be “legend” as anything else espionage.

      Assange has been suspect, and Tarpley has sustained this point since the onset of Wikileaks…

      Spy v Spy…anyone who grew up with MAD Magazine, should have a clue to the convoluted nature of espionage, and not take things at face value here.

      ww

      1. ww, thanks for your feedback.

        re: “Spy v Spy…anyone who grew up with MAD Magazine, should have a clue to the convoluted nature of espionage, and not take things at face value here.”

        agreed: here, there, and everywhere. “coincidentally,” i often use the spy vs spy analogy with my NPR/NYTimes focused girlfriend (she’s less so now). i remember one particular spy vs spy episode (and i’m sure i may have this muddled) where a white suited spy and a black suited spy engaged in some killing of opponents, and then it was revealed that under the white victims’s outfit was a black outfit, and under the black victim’s outfit was a white outfit, and the killing spies each had killed their own teammate, but it kinda balanced out, i couldn’t help wondering even back then “how many more outfits to go under the ones that are showing?”

      2. ww,
        re “tarpley has sustained this point”

        that quote stuck with me, as i inferred from it that you respected webster tarpley. was i right?

        i’m not very up on tarpley. but when i got an email this week from a&e’s wayne who said he was going to set up a booth at–and tarpley would be speaking at–the “new world’s fair” [gag] in corona/flushing queens today, i cut my beach time short and headed there from coney island. thank god i had a gps. i hate *&^%$# queens.

        luck was with me as i arrived just as tarpley took the stage. i enjoyed his speech. he effectively mocked assange and the occupy movement with their members present. he also went into how to form a revolution (based on the recent greece model) and noted that leaders were needed.

        after he left the podium, tarpley did a book signing thing and i went over and intro’d myself. he said he was sorry the nyccan effort didn’t work out and added “i could have told you it wouldn’t.” he talked about a similar effort he was involved in re a ny senatorial campaign (it might have been he who wanted to run for office. it was hard to hear over the obnoxiously loud speaker then at the podium.)

        i said, “sing me up for the revolution” but he was not taking names, which threw me. “is he actively leading or not?” i wondered. seems not, at least not in terms of organizing. maybe that would leave him open to charges of treason for engaging in activities to “actively overthrow” the phony govt now in power. i asked tarpley how does one get involved in the revolution he is encouraging. he advised that i get into twitter. [groan.]

        at one point during the private conversation, tarpley said something to the effect of “don’t waste your time on 9/11, it’s finished.” i asked what he thought of a&e and he said “they’re pathetic, they’re apolitcal. you have to be political.”

        he then turned his attention to two young reporters from rolling stone who were there, at least that’s who/what seemed to be happening thru the din, but i could not testify to that with certainty.

        while at the podium, tarpley had mentioned a second person at the batman killings and said there was a witness saying this on youtube. i looked for it and found it (via tarpley’s webstie) here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoPqz4bQqJY

        i “bought” (actually made a donation so i could get) a copy of tarpley’s book “9/11 synthetic terror.” he autographed it “best wishes and keep fighting always.”

        i asked him if he thought fdr let pearl harbor happen on purpose (lihop?) and he said, “no, it was the british.” i asked him why so many ships were out and not docked at pearl harbor on that fateful day and he said, “that’s in my next book.” he lightheartedly suggested that i pre-order.

        he also mentioned something about fdr’s son being assassinated.

        at the new world’s fair, i estimated 100 (that’s one hundred) people present, including all those who themsleves had booths. at the mets game simultanously occuring at citi field a stone’s throw away, tens of thousands of baseball fanatics witnessed the l.a. dodgers beat the ny mets 8-5.

        life goes on.

    2. Dennis,

      I have the same suspicion about Drake upon reflection. Whenever the threat of terrorism gets mentioned by a whistleblower you have to wonder. And I have the same feeling about Assange.

      You make a point that I hadn’t thought about: namely that the price paid by a whistleblower for speaking the truth get highlighted to scare others off.

      This template does not offer a search option, unfortunately, although I have that internally available.

      Here are two older threads that feature some discussion of Assange. The comments aren’t too numerous so it shouldn’t take too long to find relevant comments.

      1. Hi Craig,

        i appeal to your good self to show much more caution here.

        In cases like this, i’ll maintain that it’s infinitely more prudent to keep “The Golden Rule” in mind, and by starting out with a positive premise instead of a negative one!

        The reason being of course, that if you one day are proved wrong in your ‘positive assessment’, all you’ll ever experience is a feeling of “disappointment”, whereas if you from the outset stick to the ‘negative’ aspect (that Drake is a two-faced shite), you’ll simply end up with a very uncomfortable nagging feeling of “shame”, if one day this ‘assessment’ of yours is the one proved wrong.

        There’s great similarities between Drake and the Australian now independent politician Andrew Wilkie, as linked to. Please briefly check him out:

        http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/wilkie.htm

        With regards to Assange, sometimes a person can be better “judged” by the company he keeps, rather than by hearsay, innuendo, gossip etc. etc., coming from unenlightened entities!

        I mean, would you rather “listen” to the ‘nasties’ in the US congress, who would like to see Assange ‘burned at the stakes’, or listen to a ‘mr. s.s.a. rogue’ who also live in a world of Darkness; in preference to f. ex., amongst many others:

        John Pilger

        Phillip Adams

        Geoffrey Robertson

        who, all of them, have shown through many years of public life to possess a social conscience far exceeding that of any of the more ordinary and very ‘negative’ detractors??

        For me personally the ‘choice’ is not that difficult!

        Cheers

      2. Tamborine man says:

        “With regards to Assange, sometimes a person can be better “judged” by the company he keeps..”

        Yes, I agree it is a good gauge in many situations. One such is how it is that Assange was taken under the wing of Rothschild’s personal barrister-on-retainer, and ended up staying at his palatial mansion “under house arrest”…some house..
        {grin}

        If this isn’t obvious theater for the dazed and confused, I don’t know what would be.

        ww

      3. thanks for the feedback, craig. re: “Here are two older threads…” at the risk of displaying my own ignorance, where? i’m not receiving any hypertext link or what have you.

        1. You’ve seen my absent-mindedness at work first hand. I had intended to paste in the hyperlinks and didn’t, for some reason. Here they are:

          https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/10-ways-i-got-sucked-into-buying-the-911-cover-story

          https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/media-uncritically-swallows-u-s-claim-that-bin-laden-planned-911-sequel

          Both are older posts that don’t have that many comments, so you should be able to spot references to Assange. If not, let me know.

    3. Yea Dennis,

      I remember that Spy v Spy you mention now…jeeeze…so long ago. I hadn’t thought of it again until you just brought it up.

      Just think…who ever that artist was, and I do forget his name, he revealed the “false flag” technique in that one. I must of been around 12 years old when that idea was planted in my mind. Ah, all the things that brewed for years before maturing aye?

      ww

      1. antonio prohias was the artist, acc to wikipedia, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_vs._Spy
        some images here http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=%22spy+vs+spy%22&qpvt=%22spy+vs+spy%22&FORM=IGRE

        i’m remembering that particular clip more as double agent stuff than false flag. it’s triggering a memory also of a “get smart” episode where all of the participants in an active conspiriacy being infiltrated by max and 99 (from “control”) turned out to be control agents. nowadays, they usually do find and frame a sad patsy or two.

        yeah, the things that brewed way back when before maturing on some levels but not all for me

  14. dennis says: July 12, 2012 at 4:51 am

    “drake: hero or slick gov’t agent? i suspect the latter. ”

    Exactly my thoughts. Classic “limited hangout” tactic, as is most likely also the case with Steven Jones, Judy Wood, the Russian “mini-nukes ” guy [forget his name], Pilots For Truth, A&E For Truth, Jim Fetzer, etc. etc. [although they all may or may not be actual government agents- its hard to know for sure].

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. “drake: hero or slick gov’t agent? i suspect the latter. ”

      Exactly my thoughts. Classic “limited hangout” tactic, as is most likely also the case with Steven Jones, Judy Wood, the Russian “mini-nukes ” guy [forget his name], Pilots For Truth, A&E For Truth, Jim Fetzer, etc. etc. [although they all may or may not be actual government agents- its hard to know for sure].

      Regards, onebornfree.

      You’re turning out to be a bit of a ‘disappointment’ to me now, dear onebornfree!

      What a ‘shame’ …….

      cheers

      1. Tamborine man says:
        “You’re turning out to be a bit of a ‘disappointment’ to me now, dear onebornfree!”

        Oh no! Was it something I said?🙂

        Regards, onebornfree.

      2. Tamborine man says:
        “You’re turning out to be a bit of a ‘disappointment’ to me now, dear onebornfree!”

        Oh no! Was it something I said?🙂

        Regards, onebornfree.

        Indeed it was, dear onebornfree!

        But also what you didn’t say!

        Should i “coax” you perhaps, to make you answer OSS’s question??

        Cheers

    1. Hey, why not add Onebornfree to that list of possible “limited hangout” enablers or actual co-conspirators as well!

      Regards, ww

    2. I would like to see the evidence you base that statement on OBF. I know of no evidence that WAC or Alex Jones are performing as limited hangouts so I am interested to see what you base your statement on. I co-founded WAC Los Angeles a while ago and have not been active in it for some time but at that time at least we were not a limited hangout. Perhaps things have changed at WAC and you know something I don’t?

      1. Adam, don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer.
        He posted a Simon Shack nonsense on “fakery” of the WTC7 demo videos, was debunked and then used his “in case of emergency, break glass” back-up argument. So painfully weak, I can’t even remember it.

      2. Both Adam Ruff and OSS will find that Onebornfree will NEVER address a critique of his loony theories on “video fakery”, nor any other whacked out comments he makes.

        He is oblivious to rhyme and reason. He just puts you on permanent IGNORE…and thus remains – happy_as_a_clown.

        Now he has hurt poor Tangerine mans feelings…Lol….whatta pair.

        ww

  15. Fighting the battle against mainstream media disinformation

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31869

    “Will there be war? Will there not be war? What is happening in Syria? What about the Iranian nuclear program and US-Israeli threats to attack? What about the Palestinians and what’s happening with Iraq?

    What about the struggle between the 1% and the 99% in the US? What are the measures being taken in the name of austerity in North America and Europe? How about the crisis in the Eurozone?

    Global Research works to give readers critical coverage of these issues and much more.

    In the face of mainstream media disinformation, Global Research has remained independent and continues to act as vital information portal, and we are grateful to all those involved in this process.”

    ww

  16. Tamborine man said: “Should i “coax” you perhaps, to make you answer OSS’s question??”

    You can try whatever you like, but it won’t do you any good. At his own [i.e. OSS’s] suggestion[in the previous thread] he and I are no longer speaking.

    As I am a man of my word I will keep to my agreement with this person, who himself appears to have a very short memory. [Which might also explain some of his ridiculous “debunking” fantasy assertions].

    For the record, and for those with short attention span problems, this [i.e. no more communications] also holds true for a number of others here [hybridrogue, Senor El Once, Ruffadam, Adam Syed] all of whom have been informed by me [3 or 4 threads ago] that because of their ongoing loud-mouthed know it all, rudeness in posts to me that I would no longer respond to their ongoing delusional fantasies.

    However, I am pleased to notice that this particularly deluded individual [OSS] continues with with his hilarious false assumption that the more crappy quality fake History Channel [or whatever network] videos or stills from videos he manages to post in any particular thread, the more “real” they all somehow become , and the more he has “debunked” the idea that they are in fact all 100% digital fakes. Outstanding “logic”, I must say

    Regards, onebornfree.

    P.S.

    F.Y.I. the reason that I suspect that Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Alex Jones , We Are Change , A&E For Truth, Pilots For Truth etc. etc, are deliberate “limited hangout” government operations, is because _all_ of them are actively engaged in diverting attention away from the “in your face” bald fact that all of the network imagery run as “live” imagery on US and international networks that day,[ including all “plane into building” sequences, and all building collapse sequences e.g. WT1, 2 & 7 etc.] , was in fact 100% pre-fabricated, computer rendered, digital fakery, and _not_ actual live broadcasts of events, [See: http://www.septemberclues.info/ ], and towards entirely inconsequential, idiotic issues such as : “was it nukes, or was it DEW that destroyed the towers” etc.

    In fact, on a daily basis, they all use any ongoing B.S. distraction argument they can drag up to protect the sanctity of the US corporate media, and prevent attention being drawn to the obvious fakery of the imagery broadcast that day.

    For example, see the main contributions on this site of the two most “literate” [in their own opinion🙂 ], or at least most prolific, contributors. Nothing but an ongoing meaningless, pseudo-intellectual argument over what destroyed the towers – nothing more in fact than classic employed disinfo, “limited hangout” tactics designed to swamp the board and divert the casual , interested readers attentions _away_ from the subject of large scale 9/11 video fakery, and keep it occupied with inconsequential, unprovable, garbage theories about destruction methodologies .

    Personally , I cannot imagine a more perfect demonstration of the classic “controlled opposition” “limited hangout” methodology in action than is to seen in the reading of those two individuals never ending , long-winded “gas-bag” posts that amount to nothing but hot air.

    1. onebornfree says:

      “Personally , I cannot imagine a more perfect demonstration of the classic “controlled opposition” “limited hangout” methodology in action than is to seen in the reading of those two individuals never ending , long-winded “gas-bag” posts that amount to nothing but hot air.”
      ……

      Oh, I don’t have to imagine anything at all, I know where the hot air is on this blog emanates.
      It all has to do with this Simon Shack twaddle, whom I have shown in great detail as utterly ignorant of photo analysis of any kind, be it digital or analog.

      I think those of with a sane and lucid grasp on these simple technological aspects that I have addressed know full well that this “digital fakery” proposal is simple lunacy.

      The reason that Onebornfree will not even attempt to defend against my points, is he knows full well that he doesn’t have the technical chops to deal with my arguments – he flat out doesn’t know what he is talking about. He deals with all situations in the same way, “being a man of {his} word”…grin…which translates to being a man so full of shit that he is left speechless at the slightest confrontation.

      Anyone who has read through these threads is probably already familiar with my technical information that totally yanks the rug from under of this “digital fakery” nonsense, so I won’t go to the trouble of posting links to those passages.

      Onebornfree doesn’t know the difference between a clone tool and a video codex.
      Which translates to; he doesn’t know the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground.

      ww

      1. For those who care to check it out:

        As per the ‘Digital Fakery’ flopdoodle, although there are many threads addressing this; just on the past thread before this one, are several posts dealing with this quackery, two are from Onesliceshort, the rest are myself:

        June 25, 2012 at 4:03 pm

        June 25, 2012 at 5:58 pm -OSS

        June 25, 2012 at 7:15 pm -OSS

        June 25, 2012 at 9:16 pm

        June 26, 2012 at 10:51 am

        June 26, 2012 at 3:05 pm

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/911-vancouver-hearings/

        ww

      2. Craig,

        I am answering Onebornfree’s post just above mine. So is OSS, it is relevant as to OBFs “cryptic” non-engagement here

        Perhaps if you reread OBF’s post again…{?}

        ww

    2. OBF,

      Did I hit the spot with my dismantling of your Simon Shack WTC7 disinfo?

      There has been heated debate among the “main contributors” here over various aspects of 9/11. Some of the debate has been so heated that we’ve all of us been guilty of name calling, derogatory remarks and offensive accusations.

      Difference here though, as opposed to gubmint sites and most “truther” sites is that I see most people here challenged on their theories and evidence to the point of going into detail to defend what they claim or believe.

      You, on the other hand haven’t convinced me in the slightest. Not because of any automatic barrier that most would immediately throw up on hearing “NPT” or “video fakery” but because your entire approach is based on your tactical debate style. The WTC7 “video fakery” post being a prime example.

      You obviously posted it in the belief that Simon Shack made valid observations. I looked at it, and by coincidence (?), I had been working on a gruelling project to make a timeline of images taken of WTC7 that day that had been purposely cropped, edited and generally fucked with to confuse and overwhelm. Shack did the same thing.

      When it was pointed out to you, your Plan B, move the goalposts, whatever, the same tactic I’ve faced slapping down government loyalists for years came into effect.

      The “in case of emergency break glass” approach you have to not refuting or accepting criticism is to immediately go “cryptic”. That it’s irrelevant. Everything about 9/11 is “fake”. Even the in your face evidence. Throw it all in the bin.

      Fuck that.

      According to your logic, this site and its owner is also a limited hangout. In fact the only “real” forum is Shack’s. His WTC7 video was far from “real” OBF, wasn’t it?

      1. onesliceshort says:

        “That it’s irrelevant. Everything about 9/11 is “fake”. Even the in your face evidence. Throw it all in the bin.”
        ……

        Yes, that is it. And this is why I see Shack’s game as a psyop – it takes ALL the visual evidence out of play. It claims there is no reliable visual evidence, which in many cases is ‘Best Evidence’.

        That is worse than a modified limited hangout; that is total erasure.

        This does not reflect well on any who promote this crackpot garbage. It has all the hallmarks of COINTEL.

        ww

      2. i often wonder about some of the video evidence–who took it, who posted it on the internet, etc. i am not at all up on simon shack. but if there ever were a criminal investigation or trial etc., and the videos and photos we are all so used to seeing were going to be introduced into evidence, their authenticity would have to be established.

        if i were the attorney attempting to intro the videos and pictures into evidence, i’d want to have the peson who shot the video or took the picture up on the stand testifying to that fact under oath. and testifying as well to the the fact that what we see in the video and on the pic is what he witnessed with his own eyes thru the camera. and that there have been no edits made.

        in the film “9/11 mysteries,” which i thought was very good for the most part, there is a film clip of a plane flying into one of the towers. to my eye, the film does not look authentic. the plane just kind of disappears into the building without the building showing any damage. i watched this over and over on my old dvd player and hit the pause button to see what i could see. to my eye, the clip simply does not appear real.

        this is NOT to say i think that no planes hit the buildings or that all videos are fake, and i could in fact be wrong about this particular video (i’ve never seen a plane fly into a building after all so how can i say from experience what that would look like?). what this does demonstrate, however, is that there is a need to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to all the videos and pictures out there, some of which i would wager are fake, and uploaded to the web to confuse and taint those that are legit.

        has anyone undertaken an effort to compile and authenticate what films and pics are verifiable and real? have any of the films and pics we see actually been at least somewhat authenticated or at least gone unchallenged (e.g., like the abc film clip of barry jennings taken on 9/11 where he testifies to explosions)? if not, it would be very worthwhile to begin to compile such a record..

      3. Well Dennis,

        From what you just wrote, I can see that you have been taken in by this slick presentation of tomfoolery in the film ‘9/11 Mysteries’. This is in fact the launching tube for Shack’s whole campaign.

        And it is effective because most people are generally ignorant of video technology, and the subtleties that can be manipulated to give a false credence to such assertions as this ‘video fakery’ campaign.

        But it is obvious that once someone has swallowed this hook and line, it would take hours to explain how the whole presentation is nothing more than slick propaganda.

        I am getting sick of reiterating all the technical points as to this whole bag of dead cats…it’s up to you to learn something about it on your own.

        I suppose it doesn’t matter much anyway – there is never going to be trials or any challenge to the powers that pulled off 9/11. So those who want to drift off into such fantasies as ‘digital fakery’, or holograms, or whatever flavor of woowoo appeals to them isn’t going to make any difference.

        ww

  17. Dennis,

    Excellent post.

    There are a multitude of authors of these images and videos (in both Manhattan and Arlington) that I would personally like to see grilled. Especially those whose alleged collections of footage were censored, cropped, presented in low resolution and void of exif data.

    WTC7 Fire Progression (towards the end of the following link there’s a resumé of conclusions on the evidence you speak of):

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22085&view=findpost&p=10805406

    Pentagon lawn images (which needs to be updated as the MOD took down the images that actually contained exif data)

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21156

    “Pentagon – The first hour” (Mindnumbingly difficult sequential footage based on smoke patterns and personnel in the area)

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21617

    One “amateur photographer” allegedly on the scene at the Pentagon was Daryl Donley who claimed to have sold all of his images to Gannett Newspapers who subsequently buried them.

    Or FDNY phoyographer William Cirone who was panning around towards the south face of Building 7 when the footage was cut off.

    As for the Barry Jennings footage, there’s definitely something fishy about the footage of Michael Hess, who was allegedly with him, taken while he was at the window of Floor 8 of Building 7. Where was Jennings?

    As for Building 7 itself, one avenue of investigation that for me, could open a Pandora’s Box, is actually finding out more about this (bullcrap) BBC story about “losing the live feed because it was set to a timer” 20 minutes before WTC7’s premature collapse was announced while still standing and visible over the shoulder of the reporter.

    The mainstream media (whores) are another subject altogether but the alleged “freelance” or “amateur” photographers shouldn’t be exempt from cross examination and verification.
    I’d like to ask them why they believe their footage was treated the way it was. And if they believe that their footage was removed from the public eye until the powers that be got their story “straight”.

    1. I agree with what you have offered here OSS, however this sort of manipulation of existing live footage by cropping, debasing the quality, etc. is a far cry from the assertions of the Simon Shack crew.

      Lest we get our wires crossed this should be parsed very clearly.

      ww

      1. ww: understood i would have to look into this on my own. will do.
        but…

        re “From what you just wrote, I can see that you have been taken in by this slick presentation of tomfoolery in the film ’9/11 Mysteries’.” can you clarify how you feel i have been taken in and by what? as i am recalling, the flim used that footage to show what allegedly happened, as if the flim were genuine, right? the producer of the film is (i thought) on the right side (9/11 commission was a whitewash), no? i’m pretty sure drg called “9/11 mysteries” one of the best of the 9/11 films–i remember because his take validated my own impression (which had been formed previously).

        to clarify my own position, all i am saying is…if, during one of the trials or proceedings that most likely will never come into existence (agreed there), if i were (e.g.) the prosecutor trying to intro evidence of controlled demolition of building 7 via one of the films showing building 7 coming down, i would have to authenticate the evidence before it could be introduced. i can’t just say, “i got this film clip off the internet,” as that would of coure not fly. so the question becomes: who shot the film and can we get him/her to testify about it’s authenticity? if the answer is no, i don’t see how to get the film into evidence. that doesn’t necessarily mean the film is bogus, or that there was no controlled demolition, just that it can’t be used as evidence to established controlled demolition.

        1. Dennis,

          I think you expressed very well your concerns about the visual record of that day and about the need to establish what evidence stands up and what does not. I share those concerns. And I don’t particularly appreciate the attempts by some to mock and ridicule concerns about the subject.

          It was just the other day when I heard Kevin Barrett mention on his show that he has real trouble with the footage of the plane “melting” into the South Tower. I have always had a gut feeling that something isn’t right with that, just as you do. But when you admit to having these doubts, people accuse you of being a crazy no-planer.

          OSS, you don’t believe in NPT – and because of my enormous respect for the body of research you’ve done and because we agree on most things about 9/11, I take your view very seriously. But you do believe some of the visual evidence is suspect, so I think trying to establish where truth ends and illusion starts is fair and reasonable.

          I agree with you, Dennis, that each piece of evidence should be examined and evaluated before being taken as valid. As with the battle over Pentagon evidence, we can’t forget that 9/11 was an illusion. The event is replete with faked evidence.

          Whenever anyone brings up the subject, they are lumped in with Simon Shack, who seems to feel all the visual evidence is fabricated (I’m not sure if I’m characterizing his views correctly or not). But questioning the video doesn’t mean you’re dismissing ALL of the video. When we say, “Everything is fake” or “nothing is fake” then I think we risk playing into the perps’ hands.

          I understand that some identify themselves with Shack’s position completely. That’s fine, but they have to back up what they say just as the rest of us do. To ignore the possibility that video was tampered with just because one doesn’t want to be labelled a no-planer – or labelled a Shack supporter – is not right.

          Willy, I’m sorry this subject has become so tiresome for you. If you don’t want to deal with the slowpokes in the movement who haven’t figured all this out to your satisfaction then I suggest you don’t. Your references to woowoo fantasies are not impressive to me.

          Studying 9/11 means you’ll run into people telling you it’s fantasy to think nukes or directly energy or thermite might have been used to bring down the twin towers. It’s fantasy to question the video. It is fantasy to say a plane flew over the Pentagon. It’s fantasy to think some witnesses were actually plants, and it’s fantasy to think a taxi driver might be lying about pulling a light pole out of his windshield.

          But it’s not people’s opinions about what is fantasy that are important, it’s what the evidence shows. Dennis, I suggest you do continue to study any aspect of 9/11 you think is worthwhile without being deterred by anyone who accuses you of being gullible or taken in.

      2. HR1

        When I talk about manipulation of footage, I’m referring to the cropping and cutting of footage to portray a falsehood. The WTC7 smoke for example

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22085&view=findpost&p=10805415

        Or the Pentagon gtecam footage which has obviously been reuploaded multiple times to ruin the resolution. The original footage has the registration number of the cop car that passes blanked out. And the fact that two on the site firefighters at the heliport who claim to have ran to the lawn can’t be seen.

        There’s much more, but you get my drift.

        NPT doesn’t fly.

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

      3. You are correct Dennis I had confused the two films: ‘9/11 mysteries’, and ‘September Clues’.

        I don’t recall anything from ‘9/11 Mysteries’ that asserted the videos were CGI, that is the Simon Shack deal.

        I apologies for getting the two films mixed up.

        As far as the plane “gliding effortlessly” into the side of the tower, as Fetzer is so fond of saying; this is an optical illusion -usually drawn from viewing videos that have been compressed so hard that the details are lost.

        The issue of the plane crash physics has been gone over here exhaustively, and reviewing it again on this page would exhaust me.

        Briefly, I would say that one must be aware of the physics of momentum, wherein an object in flight; the center of momentum of such objects are the center of mass. This means that an object like an airplane, the center of mass is generally where the wings are attached to the body. In crash physics it is shown that an object striking an object at rest [in a state of inertia] the object does not slow down at the moment of impact, but only when the center of mass is reached. The rest of the physics has to do with kinetics, materials, mass, and density ratios.

        In a nutshell what this means as per the plane that hit the towers, at a speed asserted to be around 500 mph, the crash takes place in a matter of a split second.
        The human eye is incapable of discerning but a fleeting glimpse of actual visual information in an event occurring at such a short time…although the imagine may extrapolate more details for many observers. It may appear “effortless” in the videos, but the actual energies involved kinetically are tremendous.

        ww

      4. Craig,

        I appreciate your position here. But you will note, I DO encourage everyone I speak to on this subject to look into it deeper, while I also encourage them to look at my advice on how to interpret where Shack is off the tracks.

        I will also admit to errors in what I have said, such as to the mix-up between ‘9/11 Mysteries’ and ‘September Clues’ just awhile ago.

        But, every time a new poster comes along Onebornfree gives his sales pitch that:  ALL OF THE PLANE CRASHES AND BUILDING COLLAPSES ARE 100 PERCENT DIGITAL FAKES. 

        This is blithering madness…but a lot of people that have no clue to the technologies involved will be suckered in by curiosity. It is discouraging to see people talked into entering such a house of smoke and twisted mirrors.
        I do not counter with; “DON’T GO THERE” I counter with, ‘go there with these points of knowledge as a map to getting through without being sucker punched’.

        As far as Shack, I do consider it woowoo. Sorry if the phrase bugs you…if so, just let me know and I’ll drop it.

        And as far as “the plane melting into the tower” in that shot – if you don’t buy my expositions on momentum and crash physics, that is fine. I still stand by them, as well as the info on how it appears on video and why.

        ww

        1. Willy,

          I understand that you react negatively to the “all or nothing” approach that some favor. I don’t blame you for that. But if reasonable people like Dennis, Kevin Barrett, or me (I hope) have questions they should not automatically be lumped in with someone else, whom they are not necessarily endorsing.

          To focus on the “blithering madness” of it all has the effect of intimidating fair-minded people from even asking the questions. Something can be dead wrong without being madness. And as long as someone is sincere then they shouldn’t be afraid to ask anything.

          And I know truthers – highly respected ones – who privately express the same suspicions about some of the video evidence that we’ve been talking about. But they don’t talk about it because they’re afraid that it will hurt their credibility.

          If you’re encouraging posters to do research for themselves, then I applaud that. As for the woowoo thing bugging me, yes it does. But I don’t want to censor what people write unless absolutely necessary. I just don’t think it helps the debate at all.

          And the duelling “woowoos” throughout the movement have collectively done a lot more harm than good. Taking someone on and hammering them with facts and informed opinion is a much better way to have your views heard and to persuade.

          Finally, I don’t reject your explanations of the plane shot, and don’t claim to know as much as you do about crash physics. But to really be convinced that my doubts are unfounded, I’m afraid I’d need to have some of the apparent anomalies explained to me by an expert as I watched the video. Until that day comes, I don’t close the door either way.

      5. Mr. Rogue wrote:

        As far as the plane “gliding effortlessly” into the side of the tower, as Fetzer is so fond of saying; this is an optical illusion -usually drawn from viewing videos that have been compressed so hard that the details are lost.

        Briefly, I would say that one must be aware of the physics of momentum, wherein an object in flight; the center of momentum of such objects are the center of mass. This means that an object like an airplane, the center of mass is generally where the wings are attached to the body. In crash physics it is shown that an object striking an object at rest [in a state of inertia] the object does not slow down at the moment of impact, but only when the center of mass is reached. The rest of the physics has to do with kinetics, materials, mass, and density ratios.

        The center of mass plays a role in predicting lots of things, but it has little to do with determining when a penetrating object will slow down. Your attempt at a physics explanation is bullshit and reflects your poor understanding.

        The reason that the plane seems to defy physics and effortlessly penetrate the towers stems first and foremost from velocity-squared term in the energy equation of momentum. At large velocities, the energy available is very large to “shred & splatter into nothingness” the common & light materials of planes when opposed by 60 cm wide steel columns on 100 cm centers. The energies allow the common & light materials of planes to impose a slicing action on the steel columns while decimating themselves. [Lead bullets often don’t penetrate metal; they splatter on one side, transfer their energy into the steel, tear steel bonds, and send a plug of steel out the backside. The hole makes one assume the bullet penetrated completely, but that assumption would be wrong for thicker pieces of metal.]

        When velocities are much lower, the common & light materials of planes (or vehicles) have enough strength compared to the energy at play in the collision to survive in larger pieces with deformation.

        It was the magnitude of the energies applied to the materials that caused them to fail spectacularly sooner on impact. In such a scenario, it is not this boojie woojie (old) “center of mass” not slowing the plane’s tail until it gets to the towers. No! If anything, the center of (new) mass was slowing and constantly changing as the light materials of the plane (as compared to the towers) decimated themselves into independent tiny entities that were not longer part of the plane’s cohesive mass.

        Radar data and video evidence seem to validate both that a real plane flew & its speed, but the velocity and precision of the planes at such low altitude also suggest strongly that they were not commercial planes of the OCT. This is pretty damning, and undermines lots of OCT (like who was on the planes and how they took it over.)

        Speed asserted to be around 500 mph, the crash takes place in a matter of a split second. The human eye is incapable of discerning but a fleeting glimpse of actual visual information in an event occurring at such a short time

        If the human eye were only observing the last 2 or 3 plane lengths of the collision, it would catch very little detail. The camera is different, but still limited when its frame rate is put to the test with such velocities. It depends on the distance between vehicle and photographer and the photographer’s field of view. Even in ideal (normal) cases, the number of frames captured to show the length of the entire plane disappearing is less than (half?) a dozen.

        Videos … have been compressed so hard that the details are lost.

        This hints at a damning piece of evidence that we should have, but don’t. It fact, that evidence could have shut up much of September Clues long ago. Namely, the networks have the original footage without the “pesky, annoying, and unusually large” banners at the bottom of the screen or the loss via compression. They have never made this available. However misguided September Clues may be in “exposing” glitches and calling it fakery, we should not throw out the nugget of truth contained therein of media complicity in the event and certainly its aftermath.

      6. Jeeeeze…this is the last time I seek out this button here.

        Anyway Once, you say, ” we should not throw out the nugget of truth contained therein of media complicity in the event and certainly its aftermath.”

        Of course we can agree on this media complicity in the whole event. However getting such “nuggets” from September Clues is unnecessary, as media complicity is addressed in almost all critiques of the official story…why would anyone want to dig through such a pile of bullshit as in the Whackwshack to find a few “nuggets” when there are already presentation booths full of pristine gleaming nuggets elsewhere?

        ww

    2. If I may, a few remarks as to the parsing I mentioned in my last post:

      That many of the videos that are offered on YouTube have been degraded by being compressed to hell, doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that this was done purposefully – often it is the result of amateurs re-posting video using whatever cheap codex is available in their systems to process the video for posting on YouTube.
      Some of these amateurs may even use cropping and re-editing to highlight something they believe shows something closer up – which naturally leads to higher pixelation as well as the added compression algorithms.

      The real problems arise from the assertions that the original videos are manufactured by CGI – “Computer Generated Images” – and it is these assertions that can be torn apart by anyone with a firm understanding of CGI.

      One will also note, if one visits the Clues Forums of Simon Shack, there is a lot of so-called “analysis” of GIF animations, where it is said how “obvious” it is that these are ‘digital fakes’. That is a GIVEN – ALL GIF is digital recreation of video. The number of ‘frames’ are reduced via the codex of GIF creation itself. It must be understood that GIFs are NOT video.

      I think OSS has some strong reasons for suspicions that some of the videos have been purposely manipulated and cropped for manipulation purposes. But a lot of jumping to conclusions can take place by those unfamiliar with the technologies here.

      As per my own analysis I can say with absolute certainly: that the claim that the original footage of plane crashes and towers blowing up are CGI, is absolute poppycock.

      ww

      1. Señor El Once says on July 15, 2012 at 7:13 pm :

        “The center of mass plays a role in predicting lots of things, but it has little to do with determining when a penetrating object will slow down. Your attempt at a physics explanation is bullshit and reflects your poor understanding.”

        You are the one with “poor understanding” Once, the Sandia tests were done specifically to prove the equations that predict ‘center of mass as center of momentum calculus’. Using high speed camera’s they proved the proposition in toto.

        If you weren’t allergic to Prof. Jenkins, you would understand this is shown clearly.

        Shall we again go through the same BS circle about this again? Your support of Fetzer’s Wonderland-Physics shows your true aptitude Señor.

        ww

  18. Dennis says: “has anyone undertaken an effort to compile and authenticate what films and pics are verifiable and real”

    Dennis you are correct to be highly suspicious of those films/pics.

    As I have repeatedly tried to point out here in other threads [much to the chagrin of the various know-it-all “experts” here and elsewhere who already have their precious “9/11 what happened” theories firmly in place and are therefor entirely psychologically unwilling to even fairly consider the possibility that their theories are largely based on falsified imagery “evidence” ] ; all of that footage and any/all stills taken from it would have to be first closely examined before being accepted as authentic evidence in court, as you yourself pointed out.

    And yet, absolutely _every_ single 9/11 researcher to date, bar one [including several scientists, who should know better, but apparently do not], has largely based their theories on what did/did not happen that day on the assumption that the footage is real [ _because_ it was broadcast “live” that day] .

    To the best of my knowledge, the only person who has analyzed , frame by frame _all_ of the _original_, archived network footage as broadcast that day, all of the subsequently released post 9/11 tarted -up, mysterious, “higher definition” versions of the same footage and subsequent stills [mostly government released in 2007 and 2010] , plus all of the original [ i.e. 2001] so-called “amateur” footage [which is most likely what you saw as there is only one very short alleged “live” network clip from Fox5 that shows a plane striking a building] , plus all of the tarted up, re-manipulated post 9/11 mysteriously higher definition released versions of that same alleged “amateur” footage; plus all of the subsequently released brand new alleged “amateur” footage, is Simon Shack, in his “September Clues” series.

    The current full version of that series can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE . I believe this version includes an analysis of the “plane into building” video you most likely saw.

    If not, you might try this link:http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html

    He [Simon Shack] also runs a site which analyzes ongoing and past examples of photo/video fakery by governments and the media they all control, including the vast amount of video /photographic fakery perpetrated by the US government and its media/propaganda arm for the alleged “live” recorded events of 9/11; and readily evident to the unbiased, patient reviewer willing to pay close attention and do the “legwork” and invest the time needed : http://www.septemberclues.info/

    Regards, onebornfree.

  19. oss, thanks for all the info. i have some catching up to do here. for the record, i would not characterize myself as being “highly suspicious,” but definitely curious.

    1. Dennis, I’m “oss”!

      Easily confused but “onebornfree” and myself are like chalk and cheese.🙂

    2. Dennis said: “i would not characterize myself as being “highly suspicious,” ”

      But if you already refuse to totally accept them as being genuine, without further much more detailed investigation of such things as the alleged video authors background history, alleged location where video was shot, type of camera used, etc. etc. then surely you _are_ suspicious, no?

      Otherwise, why not just accept them as being genuine without any further detailed investigation, in court or otherwise, just like almost everyone else around here?

      Regards, onebornfree

      1. Otherwise, why not just accept them as being genuine without any further detailed investigation, in court or otherwise, just like almost everyone else around here?

        Regards, onebornfree

        says the guy who has never gotten closer to any “investigation” than his
        keyboard but demands standards from everybody else.

  20. This is a brief digest on CGI and digital animation that may help in grasping how this technology actually works:

    To start on the ground floor of this, considering digital effects and animation, one must discard any preconceptions having to do with manual animation techniques, such as redrawing each ‘frame’ or ‘cell’ as it was called during that era. Or repainting backgrounds from varying angles and distances, as was done in Disney’s ‘Snow White’ or ‘Pinocchio’.

    In the digital realm is a virtual space. It begins in this virtual space, which is created in software programs called CAD. If one constructs a simple 3D item in CAD, one is not only dealing with surfaces, one is creating an item that takes up virtual space. All of the relationships of the components of such an item in this virtual space are constant. This is so in the entire digital realm. A virtual 3D space is created, and all component relationships remain constant – until ‘animation’ is applied. This movement is also all integrated into the virtual 3D space which is first and foremost a simple 3D grid with POV and perspective and light source algorithms plugged in.

    The point I lead up to here, is that once this virtual 3D “world” is created, it works on all the perimeters of a real world environment when properly constructed. It is therefore as “impossible” for mistakes such as one POV showing one particular event, while another shows some change in angles or any other component.

    These are things that betray the type of “analysis” done by Shack and his ilk. All of this is over and above the other silly “analysis”, such as ‘black outlines’ supposedly caused by mismatched chroma keying, or evidence of ‘clone tools’ used in animated video.
    CAD : “Computer-Aided Design”
    ……

    I would suggest digesting what I have said above, and then going back to view the Shack “analysis” of WT7 onebornfree posted June 25, 2012 at 12:32 pm, and paying close attention to his arguments with this information in mind.

    As with many of the other “analysis” on CluesForum, there is a lot of pointing out “errors” from one video to another to do with plane paths, building and debris falls, etc. It would be absurd to claim that these are errors due to the ‘creators’ of this virtual presentation, as the first order of the day is to create the ‘virtual world – or stage’ in which all the action or animations would take place.
    And any change of angles would be flick of the switch programming of one time animations.

    Perhaps it is redundant, but I recognize that many are brand new to this. So I will try to make it clearer:

    If a virtual model of WT7 is created in CAD, and then an animation is done of it collapsing. This is now available to be rotated and viewed from any conceivable angle, it can be lit from differing light sources, zoomed into and away from etc. So any shots would be consistent in every way aside from lighting, and this would would be set based on the time of day the event is to be staged at for all subsequent POVs.

    Thus, any inconsistencies Shack pretends to point out are all the product of his own imagination.

    ww

  21. Dennis says: “to clarify my own position, all i am saying is…if, during one of the trials or proceedings that most likely will never come into existence (agreed there), if i were (e.g.) the prosecutor trying to intro evidence of controlled demolition of building 7 via one of the films showing building 7 coming down, i would have to authenticate the evidence before it could be introduced. i can’t just say, “i got this film clip off the internet,” as that would of coure not fly. so the question becomes: who shot the film and can we get him/her to testify about it’s authenticity? if the answer is no, i don’t see how to get the film into evidence. that doesn’t necessarily mean the film is bogus, or that there was no controlled demolition, just that it can’t be used as evidence to established controlled demolition.”

    And the exact same rules should/would apply to the other [i.eWTC1 and 2] collapse sequence footage, plus any/all of the clips [network or amateur] showing planes approaching or colliding with the towers, and to any/all of the alleged network and other “eyewitnesses”, correct?

    Regards, onebornfree

  22. Craig McKee said: “Whenever anyone brings up the subject, they are lumped in with Simon Shack, who seems to feel all the visual evidence is fabricated (I’m not sure if I’m characterizing his views correctly or not). ”

    Why don’t you ask him to clarify his position for you, Craig?

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. You clarify it Onebornfree, are you championing the Simon Shack angle? As you provide URLs to ‘September Clues’ and the ‘Clues Forum’ with all of your sales pitches, it certainly appears that you are.

      Is it not your position that all the visual evidence of 9/11 is fabricated in CGI?

      We have heard from Shack himself on this very forum. That is definitely his position, that all of the imagery of the plane crashes and the towers blowing up are CGI animations.

      You do recall the thread where Simon and I spoke directly and how he made it very clear that he didn’t have a ‘clue’ as to what he’s talking about, and finally simply disappeared never to return again. [When did they know? 36 Truth leaders].

      ww

  23. Craig MKee said: “But to really be convinced that my doubts are unfounded, I’m afraid I’d need to have some of the apparent anomalies explained to me by an expert as I watched the video. Until that day comes, I don’t close the door either way.”

    Craig, you don’t need an “expert” “explaining” anything to you. All you need is your own powers of observation, deduction and common sense, unclouded by any assumption other than a pre-existing deep suspicion of any/all “evidence” that supports absolutely any part of the governments story- as would be perfectly acceptable and no more than”run of the mill” in any US criminal court prosecution. [In other words a pre-bias that is the complete opposite to nearly every contributor to your posts🙂 ]

    Any person either here or elsewhere who claims to be a “crash physics expert” [or whatever], and who out of the other side of their invariably large mouth[s] claims that aluminum cuts through steel is, by logical extension, arguing that the steel frame of the WTC buildings should in fact have been constructed with aluminum girders, because, [don’t you know🙂 ] aluminum has a “higher tensile strength pound for pound”, than steel.

    So why don’t you track down a structural engineer you trust and ask them why these types of buildings were in the real world constructed with a steel framework as opposed to a far lighter [but “stronger”! ] aluminum framework?

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. It is my powers of observation that lead me to question in the first place. But that doesn’t mean I have all the answers just yet, and it doesn’t mean my investigation ends with my “impressions.” The fact that it looks fake when that plane enters the tower doesn’t mean someone with more expertise might not have an explanation.

      But your idea of talking to a structural engineer is a good one. A video expert would also be good. I tried to interview one of the “amateur” video makers from 9/11, Luc Courchesne of Montreal (the disappearing wing video), and he refused to talk to me.

      1. craig,
        thanks very much for the defense, feedback, and encouragement. i like the way you run your site! good to hear you say that “I have always had a gut feeling that something isn’t right with that [video], just as you do… when you admit to having these doubts, people accuse you of being a crazy no-planer. “ i wonder how that came to be, and why.
        right, “As with the battle over Pentagon evidence, we can’t forget that 9/11 was an illusion. The event is replete with faked evidence.”
        agreed that “The fact that it looks fake when that plane enters the tower doesn’t mean someone with more expertise might not have an explanation.”

        ww,
        thanks for the clarification re “I had confused the two films: ’9/11 mysteries’, and ‘September Clues’.” i was taken aback by your reply initially but no, i did not feel insulted. so no apology necessary.
        the physics with all this are way beyond me. i’d like to see/hear true experts (who could pass muster on a voir dire) on each side of the equation debate the matter. meanwhile, i still want to meet/interview/hear about the people who allegedly took the videos and posted them.

        oss.
        sorry to have confused you with obf.

        obf,
        i’d still characterize my position as curious. one thing that would make me suspicious is if the key clips essentially came in out of nowhere and can’t be traced. that would still not be determinative, however. it might be that the filmmaker fears for his/her life, or just wants to avoid publicity. i’m open to hearing whatever the explanations might be.
        re: “And the exact same rules [of evidence] should/would apply to the other [i.eWTC1 and 2] collapse sequence footage, plus any/all of the clips [network or amateur] showing planes approaching or colliding with the towers…” yes, all video/film/digital/picture evidence would have to be authenticated.
        re: ”…and to any/all of the alleged …eyewitnesses.” different rules of evidence there. basically the eyewitnesses would have to be brought in to testify, unless some exception to the hearsay rule applied, e.g. “unavailabilty.”

    2. It is a fact that the aluminum* that aircraft are made of have a stronger tensile strength than structural steel, but this does not mean that it would have equal or better load bearing strength.

      Tensile Strength:
      > Structural Steel – yield strength: 250 – ultimate strength: 400
      > *Aluminum Alloy 2014-T6 – yield strength: 400 – ultimate strength: 450
      It is also a fact that the Boeing jetliners of this class have wing fairings made of Kevlar – as do the stabilizers.

      The facade of the towers in fact did have an outer layer of aluminum dressing the structural steel .

      ww

  24. Craig McKee said: “To focus on the “blithering madness” of it all has the effect of intimidating fair-minded people from even asking the questions.”

    Wake up and smell the coffee! That is _exactly_ the intended effect Craig. Classic controlled opposition, classic “limited hang out” b.s. tactics.

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. Wake up and smell the coffee! That is _exactly_ the intended effect Craig. Classic controlled opposition, classic “limited hang out” b.s. tactics.

      Regards, onebornfree

      Onebornfree and Craig

      What was your opinion on my breakdown of Simon Shack’s WTC7 video and Willy’s professional breakdown of CGIs?

      Or my break down of the main points against NPT from the marathon discussion with Jim Fetzer here?

      Or proof positive that Jim Fetzer promoted a video that was genuinely fake?

      I resent being portrayed as a shill or treating claims about NPT/video fakery like a duhbunker uses the “conspiracy nut” label against truthseekers when I’ve looked into these claims in detail and have received no feedback whatsoever. From snybody.

      1. OSS,

        You might well ask OBF these questions, but I’m not clear why you’re addressing these remarks to me. I don’t think you’re a shill or someone who relies on insults instead of facts. Quite the opposite. I don’t believe that to question something I have to defend others who may raise related questions. Just because Jim Fetzer showed a faked video has nothing to do with my opinions. Same for NPT. And same for Simon Shack.

        I was just defending Dennis’s right to express doubts and to ask questions.

      2. Craig, I know I leave a hard impression with my style of argumentum. But I think you have seen over the course of these threads I have always maintained that any and all should be free to their own opinions. All I seek is a competent defense of those opinions if I find them wanting.

        I hope that Dennis didn’t find me too aggressive in my replies – aside from my mistake about the two films, we seem to be having a mutually beneficial conversation. And if I have insulted Dennis I do apologize sincerely.

        Now Craig you also say:

        “You might well ask OBF these questions…”

        I think is is crystal clear that OBF does not answer questions but from a select few here. He never answers OSS nor I, and he listed a few others who are simply NOT HERE as per his cognizance.

        He will make third hand remarks about us, but won’t stand for a face to face communication. It is such jejune behavior that strikes some of us as more than a little peculiar. I see it as childish obstinacy. But I recognize it is not within the host’s purview to address such sensitive things with certain sensitive beings.

        ww

      3. Craig

        The post was directed more at OBF but I remember you having directly asked questions on points I had made re the videos of the south tower impact and more recently indirectly about the alleged “anomalies” that Simon Shack claimed about WTC7. There was no feedback on either.

        Throughout this blog (which has veered off once again into NPT) OBF continues to insult all posters here because they don’t fall into his all-encompassing “theory” that everything, including the collapses, victims and impacts are all “fake” (“so why bother?” is his warcry).

        Why the laissez- faire attitude with him? I love this blog because of the variety and lack of censorship but there comes a point when you do indeed have to say “why
        bother” when a troll like OBF has carte blanche to dodge, skip and insult.

        1. OSS,

          You make a very good point. I did not comment on those answers at the time, although there was no conscious decision not to. I can only assume I must have been satisfied with your answers.

          If I’ve been too laissez faire with someone like OBF it isn’t because I agree with him or because I endorse his methods of argumentation. There are times (a lot of times) when I just let others handle the debate, especially when I know there are those who will take the opposite point of view.

          I also have to find a balance between being involved in the discussion and having time to actually write new articles. Following all the comments in detail – which means reading all the links and following all the counter arguments – can be quite a task at times.

          I guess I got involved here not to get into the whole fakery thing again but more to stand up for Dennis’s right to ask a fair question, or express a fair doubt, without being ridiculed. I was not taking OBF’s side. Perhaps I should have been clearer about that.

          One of the things I like about the comments section on this blog is that there are so many smart, informed people here who won’t let bad arguments stand. And I appreciate it when regular contributors like you let me know when they think I’m letting something or someone go when they need to be challenged. Please keep doing that.

          As to your follow-up comment, I will read that over today and get back to you with comments.

      4. Craig

        Just to put more meat on the bones of what looks like mere footstamping on my part

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/911-vancouver-hearings/#comment-7016

        All of the collapse sequence videos from all US TV networks allegedly broadcasting live that day,[ and archived here: http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive.html ] , were pre-fabricated computer generated simulations and are all 100% digital fakes.

        Not even very good fakes at that. Fake towers, fake sky, fake bridges, fake trees, fake birds, fake scenery, fake smoke, fake helicopters, fake explosions and fake dust clouds. Fake everything.

        As with all of the various supposed “live” “Fl.175 into WTC2″ sequences, [e.g. Fox5, CBS, ABC, NBC,CNN, etc. plus all of the various “amateur” videos of the same event – also all digital fakes], there were _no_ live broadcasts of towers collapsing that day.

        The exact same [i.e.fake] holds true for the WTC7 collapse sequences 

        Therefor, there is simply no way to know for sure what was used to demolish the WTC complex that day, [and its not even that important to know in any case! ], since all of the current theories, [D.E.W., Nanonthermite, mini-nukes etc.] ,rely heavily on the analysis of 100% digitally faked WTC collapse sequences aired by complicit networks as “live” footage.

        _None_ of the “scientists” involved in the various “means of demolition” hypothesis’ have to date ever even bothered to thoroughly check the authenticity of the video footage to be used as their primary “evidence” source, and from which their “scientific” conclusions were largely to be drawn, before reaching any of those supposedly “scientific” conclusions. Very sad. 

        Regards, onebornfree.

        To which you yourself replied (to Willy’s response)

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/911-vancouver-hearings/#comment-7020

        Since you are a video effects expert, perhaps you could explain how the apparent anomalies in the video about Building 7 offered by onebornfree can be explained?

        HybridRogue1’s reply

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/911-vancouver-hearings/#comment-7034

        My response

        Onebornfree

        The “scientific thesis” boils down to there not being enough fires, over any prolonged period of time to bring WTC7 down and that a eutectic mixture was found in the rubble.

        I can’t go into details of the “glitches” and “black lines” but I do know that the timeframes to compare the smoke patterns are up to an hour apart in some cases in that Simon Shack video.

        The Demetri footage has purposely been mixed up and the timeframes quoted by NIST, the timer on the FOIA footage and images from other angles do contradict eachother but this is more in line with upholding the lie that there were fires right through until 5:20pm

        I’ve gone into extreme detail with what we have available (check out the “4pm-5:20pm” section):

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22085

        Here’s the video footage with the false timestamp (false in that it doesn’t add up):

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA

        All WTC7 (and Ground Zero) footage is purposely jumbled, edited, cropped and generally buggered over a barrel but even with the paltry, exif free, censored and withheld photographic evidence, NIST’s claims are busted.

        That includes audio and the collapses.

        So let’s turf it on the NPT bonfire?

        As for the apparent “discrepancies” in the collapse footage of WTC7, you need to look at the collapse from several angles:

        Here’s a still from the North. The number of floors visible above the structure obstructing the lower floors is @21

        From the same sequence, a still showing the beginning of the deformation of the East facade. 6 floors above the structure:

        Here’s the still from the West. @18 floors are visible above the structure blocking the view of the lower floors:

        So the linear collapse seen in the Shack footage is only visible until 3 or 4 floors before the major distortion of the east facade begins.

        Here’s another still from the West showing the kink of the East face just beginning:

        And from the same footage, the west face can be seen to be majorly distorted:

        Please forward this information to Simon Shack. He must have “missed” those observations.

        Onebornfree demanded that I answer questions from another post that had nothing to do with the Shack WTC7 video he was promoting. And you yourself offered no feedback. Fair enough, I know that you’re alone doing a busy, daily job controlling large amount of traffic on your site but this guy’s accusations and stance which firmly belongs in the “shadows” need to be addressed.

        Examples

        OBF

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/911-vancouver-hearings/#comment-6817

        “But then again, Judy Wood’s supporters did exactly the same thing in the recent Judy Wood thread, as does “onesliceshort” via his June 19, 2012 at 5:09 pm post in the aforementioned previous Vancouver thread, entirely contradicting himself with regard to the video he/she has just posted in this thread in the process. One is fake, the other is not, because? Blank out.

        He/she seems to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to just conveniently cherry pick what is real/genuine, and what are fake videos purely on a whim, depending on which one supports his/her pet 9/11 grand theory, and which ones do not. However, this procedure is “standard operating procedure” around these parts at least, as far as I can tell. “

        Indirect answer to that pile of crap 

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/911-vancouver-hearings/#comment-6920

        OBF

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/911-vancouver-hearings/#comment-6861

        “and seeing as how both Hollywood and the corporate media organizations are seemingly dominated by those of the Jewish faith, and also that the Israel lobby in congress is so dominant, it is hard _not_ to come to the conclusion that some sort of direct Israel connection has to be there somewhere.

        The question is, does it really even matter? It was an inside job. Almost everyone here and as well as the majority of speakers in Vancouver already know that and can agree on that one simple fact .

        Why are they [and the majority here] all wasting their time squabbling over which of the multitudes of both governmental and quasi-governmental “special interest groups”[including but not limited to the Israel lobby], was/is primarily responsible, or about exactly how the towers were demolished, when none of that can be ultimately proven one way or another, is inconsequential, and is at the same time ultimately divisive? ”

        Regards, onebornfree”

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/911-vancouver-hearings/#comment-6913

        As I have mentioned before, and regardless of your conclusion, I still do not understand how the believing of unsubstantiated alleged “eyewitness testimony” has anything at all with reaching a conclusion based on using a sound scientific methodology [versus doing a thorough , honest, frame by frame analysis/ investigation of both the content of those videos and the technical aspects involved in their creation] .

        But , to be fair, you are in “good ” company.

        Neither Prof. Steven Jones, nor Prof. Judy Wood have undertaken any serious prolonged photo/video analysis and authentication process themselves before reaching their so-called “scientifically derived” conclusions about what specifically was used to destroy the towers, and so we are left with the humorous spectacle of Jones and Wood fantasizing about such observed “phenomena” as alleged molten metal cascading out of the side of floors, alleged “hot spots” of molten metal that glowed for weeks after, and the alleged “dustification” of steel, concrete, and God knows what else.

        […] 

        close analysis of all of the various network archive footage for that day depicting the WTC tower collapses [and that of building 7], shows obvious signs of pre-fabrication [including the entire Fox 5/CNN sequence of Fl. 175 striking WTC2 

        At some stage we have to get into the nitty gritty to weed out the lies to get to the truth. Or why bother?

      5. Thanks Craig

        I sort of regretted addressing that post to you on hindsight. Translating thoughts that appear reasonable and diplomatic into the written word isn’t an art form I’ve mastered.

        Here’s what I had intended to post last night before I read OBF’s snipes

        But you do believe some of the visual evidence is suspect, so I think trying to establish where truth ends and illusion starts is fair and reasonable.

        I remember clear as day sitting in my parents’ house and the news of the first tower being struck was like a background noise in the room. When the explosion rocked the second tower, my immediate thoughts were “hijackers” and “Arabs”. I even said the words without realizing it. The greatest illusion carried out that day for me personally was the fact that for 6 years afterwards I was unaware that there was even debate on the subject!

        I had no access to the internet, didn’t even know what it was, and was more concerned about events in my own neck of the woods having been involved in protest politics for nearly 20 years.

        I knew from experience that governments lie all of the time. I knew that the media lied for them. I also knew that people in general, not directly affected by circumstances either had no interest or swallowed whatever was pumped through their TV screens or sprayed over the newspapers. I was angry with myself. Angry that even though I should have stepped back, I accepted what the BBC told me.

        Now, if somebody who has first hand experience of “dirty tricks” and has been fighting against a propaganda war for half of his life was taken in so easily for years, how hard would it be to convince the majority who don’t give a shit, have given up or are brainwashed? 

        The biggest illusion that was perpetrated was by media saturation and repitition of the official story (whatever the hell it has now morphed in to!) until people got sick and tired or just accepted it and moved on. Information control and marginalization of “dissent” is the MO.

        When I first set foot in “cyberspace”, I came across “September Clues” and it blew me away for a while. The only reason I started to question it was because I also bought the “no plane at the Pentagon” spin and the ever increasing need to label every single witness to one as a “plant”.

        I tend to overthink things and reapproached it from an operational point of view. If a government viciously attacked its own people, would they leave loose ends like that? A few “loyal”, blackmailed or money driven individuals, maybe. But scores? History of the deep state tells us that they don’t. JFK? Oklahoma?

        I never entered the NPT in Manhattan debate because I could fully understand the reservations people have about the physics of the plane striking the building. And the fact that the media are an extension of the government.

        That was until the recent debate with Jim Fetzer and seeing the scores upon scores of photographic and video evidence of an aircraft from multiple angles. The same question crops up. Would these people who would obviously have known how the 9/11 op was carried out be left to their own devices? 

        What’s so difficult in accepting that the aircraft that struck the south tower was weaponized and/or modified to explain the penetration as an alternative to NPT? Remote control?

        Previous ops have shown that the perps are arrogant, over confident professionals in deceit who get way too much credit. They like to keep it simple. Strike first then make the shit up as they go along afterwards, leaving an official spin that can morph into whatever they need it to be. Backed up by greedy corporations, a rotten justice system, a whore media and a corrupt, multilayered DOD which includes disinfo operatives in all areas. Did they really need such an elaborate, Hollywood style perfect plan when they have the world by the throat and the public is ever increasingly proving itself to be weak, apathetic bitch to authority?

        If people have genuine doubts, nobody can convince them but themselves but I can’t accept a theory that negates all other avenues of investigation.  Was there a media headfuck that day? Yes. Were there aircraft involved? Yes.

        Was every single piece of video and photographic footage faked?

        No.

        If OBF were to accept any photographic or video evidence as valid, his house of cards comes tumbling down. If he were to actively investigate or interview any of the scores of people who could allegedly bring the “government” down rather than demand “higher standards” of others to prove his theory is wrong, there may be some debate. But he hasn’t and has no intentions of doing so.

        2cents

        1. OSS,

          I so relate to this:

          “Now, if somebody who has first-hand experience of “dirty tricks” and has been fighting against a propaganda war for half of his life was taken in so easily for years, how hard would it be to convince the majority who don’t give a shit, have given up or are brainwashed?”

          My story is very similar. It wasn’t until 2007 when a friend told me about “the third building.” My reaction was adamant: there’s no way a huge skyscraper could fall without me knowing. The media would have reported it! Like you, I was already very cynical about the media, even though I was working in it. And the paper I worked at was totally at odds with my politics. But it was a job.

          I heard about the first tower hit on my way to work. I was doing the layout for a large weekly in Montreal, and it was our deadline day. The thing that kept going around in my head was, “How is it possible those planes weren’t intercepted?” The other thing was that the collapse looked wrong to me. While I’m not a physicist, I could tell that something was phony about how those buildings came down.

          But even with those suspicions, I didn’t take the next logical step. I believed the media accounts of cell phone calls and later the bin Laden “confession” video. I knew the Kennedy assassination was a CIA operation (I’d been reading books on the subject since the 1970s), and I had been preoccupied with U.S. intervention in Central America through the 1980s. But the 9/11 lie was so big that I was fooled.

          One of the things that keeps so many people fooled is they can’t believe a lie can be this huge. I didn’t, but I do now. The bigger the lie, the more people believe it….

          I may be one of those people who can now be accused of giving too much credit to the planners. I have come to believe that this event was planned many years in advance, maybe even decades. The average person thinks 9/11 couldn’t have been an inside job because they don’t believe something this big could be done without people finding out. But when you have the media on your side, though, you can convince a lot of people, as you point out.

          This brings me to an area where I think we have some disagreement. I believe it was indeed an elaborate Hollywood plan. Perfect, no. But they could not afford to have it morph into something unless they had a pretty good idea what that something would be. The loose end thing is also something I would have agreed with at one time. But there are too many examples of vast conspiracies involving thousands of people that either weren’t found out or were found out by a small number of people who weren’t listened to.

          So 9/11 was not perfect (Building 7 likely went wrong, and the Barbara Olson phone calls were a definite loose end). Not perfect but some things had to be damned close to it. Think about the plane impacts for a second. The entire operation depended on the illusion that those planes did enough damage to bring the towers down. The impacts had to be pretty close to perfect. The plane could not hit the side of the building and fall down because there wouldn’t be enough damage to the building for the illusion. The explosion could not take place on impact for the same reason. There had to be fire inside.

          The plane ABSOLUTELY HAD TO penetrate fully and then explode. It is this fact that makes me slow to reject the video angle. You may be right about the modified plane penetrating the facade. But I think we must agree that however they did it, it could not have been left to chance. It had to be perfect.

          While we may give too much credit sometimes, I feel there’s a greater danger in not giving enough credit. One of my former journalism colleagues rejected my 9/11 beliefs because she thought it was much more likely that incompetence would be at the root of it rather than an “elaborate” government plan. She preferred to look down on those dumb government types rather than considering that something truly diabolical and intricate could have been carried out. A bit arrogant on her part, I think. And I think the planners of black ops like this count on this attitude to help them cover up what they’ve done.

          Was all the evidence faked? No, I agree with you. I do not defend OBF’s perspective, I only represent my own.

      6. Onesliceshort,

        Great commentary the last couple of days – all of it, but especially this last one.
        I liked hearing about your personal journey to this point. It shows that even 6 years in without it occurring to you, when it finally did you activated rather than running deeper into the cave – which is pretty much standard human response.
        ……

        Also, this commentary on OBF is essential, his is part of an agenda to ERASE all of the visual evidence. Until the import of this central point is grasped in it’s fullest, a lot of people are simply going to A] not pay much attention B] get sucked into the bullshit party at Shack’s, or C] simply take Onebornfree as soft in the head.

        The more familiar I become with his posting techniques, the more convinced I become that he is not simply soft in the head – but has a well formulated, well timed agenda, a very destructive agenda that needs a spotlight shined on it.
        Being wrong is one thing – being wrong on purpose is another.
        ……

        Thanks again OSS, for all the hard work you put into the last few days postings, they are very valuable contributions here.

        ~Willy

      7. Thanks for the feedback Craig and Willy. Appreciated.

        Apologies beforehand for the short story coming up but I was thinking out loud…

        Please don’t confuse my “loose end” argument with the “thousands couldn’t keep a secret” spin. I totally agree with your position on this Craig. 

        It’s interesting that you mentioned that your friend believed that people were caught with their trousers down and that this somehow explained away the “discrepancies” in the official story. Ironically, she is probably describing the very scenario that the perps used to cover their tracks after the event. The “thousands” that government loyalists refer to consist of “blue collar,” lower down the pegging order, nodding dogs within the bureaucratic and “security force” ranks.

        Information was controlled, compartmentalized and censorship-cum-blatant lies justified to these people through one of several scenarios.

        1) “We don’t want to cause a conspiracy theory”

        2) “It’s a matter of National Security”

        3) “We’re following leads that must be kept from the public”

        4) “It was a sting gone wrong”

        5) “That’s an order”

        Mix into the above conscience soothing excuses to turn a blind eye the fear of death, losing their jobs, threats, blackmail, promises of promotion, fear of not conforming to what they were told, etc

        Same goes for the middle to upper tier. The stakes may be higher. How much dirty deals go on , corners cut and backhanders slipped in the US daily (and the world for that matter)? How many military and corporate lapdogs who were unaware of what was going to go down that day were actually caught with their hand in the cookie jar and went along with the official story to cover their lying, stealing, murdering asses? 

        Mix into that lot the CIA dirty secrets accumulated on these people. And the politicians. The prospect of incarceration for whatever the CIA has on them.
        Multi-billion dollar deals hanging in the balance. Blackmail on an industrial scale.

        The same chain of command and the same lapdogs were there when Oklahoma, Waco, TWA800, Mena and IranContra (to name but a few) were whitewashed. The same people who set up fascist regimes throughout Central and South America, as you say, but also in Europe (Gladio) and the Middle East.

        Here’s my point (at last!)

        9/11 was the high risk black op. It had to be approached with a black op MO. 

        Compartmentalization. 

        Operatives were running in cells. Each cell had their own part to play to varying degrees. Some cells were used as a distraction. No cell knew who the personnel were in others.  The personnel in each cell possibly didn’t even know who was in their own. Each cell possibly didn’t know what the end result would be that day bar the military operatives controlling the aircraft and demolitions. 

        When the entire plan came together, and they saw the end result, they immediately circled their wagons and let the politicians and media take over, having already started the ball rolling by pointing the finger at OBL and insinuating that what millions had just seen was possible and which was eventually used by NIST and FEMA to explain the collapses (Harley guy for one).

        From there on in, evidence was “confiscated”, tampered with and destroyed.

        Media saturation. Repetition. Lies for 10 years. A gullible, apathetic and demoralized public. Money being made. Job done.

        That’s why I have a major problem with the theory that scores of people accredited with the images and videos that were allegedly knowingly faked having first hand knowledge of exactly what went down on 9/11. It makes no logistical sense to allow a group (or cell) so large to have such crucial, powerful information. And that soulless entities that rubber stamped and carried out the attacks could sleep in their beds at night knowing that one slip from any of these people could pull down the empire the perps had built up for decades leading up to 9/11.

        This brings me to an area where I think we have some disagreement. I believe it was indeed an elaborate Hollywood plan. Perfect, no. But they could not afford to have it morph into something unless they had a pretty good idea what that something would be. The loose end thing is also something I would have agreed with at one time. But there are too many examples of vast conspiracies involving thousands of people that either weren’t found out or were found out by a small number of people who weren’t listened to.

        So 9/11 was not perfect (Building 7 likely went wrong, and the Barbara Olson phone calls were a definite loose end). Not perfect but some things had to be damned close to it. Think about the plane impacts for a second. The entire operation depended on the illusion that those planes did enough damage to bring the towers down. The impacts had to be pretty close to perfect. The plane could not hit the side of the building and fall down because there wouldn’t be enough damage to the building for the illusion. The explosion could not take place on impact for the same reason. There had to be fire inside.

        The plane ABSOLUTELY HAD TO penetrate fully and then explode. It is this fact that makes me slow to reject the video angle. You may be right about the modified plane penetrating the facade. But I think we must agree that however they did it, it could not have been left to chance. It had to be perfect.

        I agree that the portrayal of events that day were straight off of a Hollywood-type script. The media played their part perfectly bar a few on the ground reporter and TV anchormen slip-ups that were quickly removed. References to “demolition”, “multiple explosions”, “van bombs” (in both Washington and Manhattan), the premature announcement that Building 7 had collapsed, the plane “circling the White House” just after the Pentagon explosion.

        Even what should have been an iconic image of the woman standing in one of the gaping impact holes was 404ed because it complicated the “raging 
        inferno” bs.

        But that entire networks had prior knowledge? See my earlier objections.

        I would go even further and raise the possibility that the Pentagon op was a total f-up on two fronts. The facade was actually meant to collapse as the explosion went off and that the aircraft was actually meant to fly through the already cleared “light pole path” but was blown off course as it approached the Navy Annex.

        I believe, based on the speed at low altitude and the total penetration of the towers that the aircraft were weaponized. Either for visual effect as you say or to actually carry the payload to initiate the destruction of the core.

        From an earlier post of mine..

        ..between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded specifically on 18 floors in WTC 1, including floors 92 to 100 and 102; and on 13 floors in WTC 2 including floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92 and 97. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii).

        You’re right. It had to be perfect. We couldn’t have either aircraft in Manhattan skimming the side of the towers and spraying evidence all over Manhattan (The sudden change in direction in the final seconds for the second strike points to this). Just like we couldn’t have aircraft parts sprayed all over Route 27 at the Pentagon running through all of those obstacles and the topography (on the flip side of my earlier argument). Shanksville is the most absurd of the four. There was also a drone sized craft seen by a witness just before the explosion there.

        For the reasons above I believe that the aircraft were remote controlled.

        As Dennis stated earlier, we don’t have a prior example of how an aircraft would react on striking a building, but the video fakery theory snowballs out of control and whether intentionally or not negates all visual evidence. That’s why my gut instinct points to a physical reason for the penetration.

        The End (lol)

      8. I think another reason we should be careful when we parse what is scripted and not on the media on 9/11, we should pay close attention, more to the troupe of “usual suspects” that is: the “terrorism experts” – the politicos – the military experts,that were paraded in front of the studio cameras; and the management behind the scenes, who produce and arrange such interviews.

        And we should remember when the first tower fell, and the voices of news anchors from all the major networks attempting to describe what they just witnessed. To a man, every major network, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC used the language, It looked like what we have all seen before when a building is purposely demolished – like a controlled demolition.

        A lot of what went on in the first half day was never to be aired again, especially the on the ground reporters telling of bombs going off in the hour or so leading up to the finale {much of the material that made up ‘Loose Change’}

        ww

      9. HR1

        I would draw a line between the contention that the media/television network whores, bar deep state operatives and corporate boardroom traitors, had foreknowledge of an “event” occuring on 9/11 and the synchronicity and military precision with which the propaganda machine can churn out exactly what they’re told. Who to point the finger at. And what to censure, deny and withdraw en bloque.

        I had to endure listening to these “experts” trawling through about 50 hours of news coverage that morning for my “Pentagon – The First Hour” video compilation.

        I liked these two videos on propaganda (although Naom Chomsky contributes – makes me angry when he speaks so eloquently and intelligently on all things non-9/11 related)

        http://vimeo.com/19977851

  25. “The initial velocity of the plane just before impact closely matches measurements obtained from multiple video sources, namely 542 MPH. The tail end of the plane moves one plane length, 159 feet 2 inches, during a time interval of 0.2 seconds which yields an average velocity of 541.5 MPH.
    A very small change in velocity of the tail end is not unexpected. Analysis of an F-4 Phantom jet aircraft impacting a massive slab of concrete at Sandia National Laboratories shows no loss of velocity of the tail end during collision within the measured error.”
    ~Jenkins

    If one considers it simply from common sense, it should seem obvious that nothing that takes place on the macro scale ‘takes no time at all’. There is always a sequence of time involved, even something as “instantaneous” as the flash of a bulb on a camera actually takes time…microseconds to be sure, but time nevertheless.

    As Jenkins points out above, “The tail end of the plane moves one plane length, 159 feet 2 inches, during a time interval of 0.2 seconds. Can one even imagine what 0.2 seconds looks like to the human eye? It looks ‘instantaneous’…and this is called an illusion, because 0.2 seconds is measurable with modern instrumentation and slomo videography.

    The center of mass of course changes as the amount of the mass is reduced in a crash. When a crashing object reaches the impact point of the proximate mass, the mass is already 1/2 of the original mass, and the center of mass moves back toward the tail as the rest of the mass is shattered. The momentum however is still in play with all of the shattered material, and this material is going to be effected by the physics of equal force to equal reaction [another Newtonian formula] which now has interplay with the formulas of kinetics and the transfers of momentum energies to heat and pressures; and these are complicated by adding in the heat and pressures of the exploding aircraft fuel.

    ww

    1. I wrote on July 15, 2012 at 7:13 pm

      The reason that the plane seems to defy physics and effortlessly penetrate the towers stems first and foremost from velocity-squared term in the energy equation of momentum. At large velocities, the energy available is very large to “shred & splatter into nothingness” the common & light materials of planes when opposed by 60 cm wide steel columns on 100 cm centers. … It was the magnitude of the energies applied to the materials that caused them to fail spectacularly sooner on impact. In such a scenario, it is not this boojie woojie (old) “center of mass” not slowing the plane’s tail until it gets to the towers. No! If anything, the center of (new) mass was slowing and constantly changing as the light materials of the plane (as compared to the towers) decimated themselves into independent tiny entities that were not longer part of the plane’s cohesive mass.

      I therefore proved Mr. Rogue’s little understanding of the copy & pasted text from Dr. Jenkins.

      Because Mr. Rogue is so keen on being prompt rather than correct, he tries to chide me with his July 15, 2012 at 7:38 pm posting [in the wrong place]:

      You are the one with “poor understanding” Once, the Sandia tests were done specifically to prove the equations that predict ‘center of mass as center of momentum calculus’. Using high speed camera’s they proved the proposition in toto.

      But then quick-draw Mr. Rogue must back peddle in his July 15, 2012 at 8:21 pm posting [in yet a third place]:

      The center of mass of course changes as the amount of the mass is reduced in a crash. When a crashing object reaches the impact point of the proximate mass, the mass is already 1/2 of the original mass, and the center of mass moves back toward the tail as the rest of the mass is shattered.

      Exactly what I said. However, to the original point and your original comment, the changing center of mass is not the reason for the tail’s seeming lack of deceleration. Instead, it is the energies associated with the high velocity and even larger velocity-squared term in the momentum equation that significantly overwhelms the resistive structural energy of the common and light materials of the aircraft.

      Here’s a lovely little strawman from Mr. Rogue:

      Your support of Fetzer’s Wonderland-Physics shows your true aptitude Señor.

      Nothing I wrote merited this association. To be clear, Dr. Fetzer brings up the lack of perceptible deceleration in the tail as an indication of video fakery or holograms. And Dr. Fetzer’s error in his thinking is not appreciating the overwhelming quantities of energy the velocity-squared term at high velocities means when compared to the resistive structural energy of the common and light materials of the aircraft. Under such conditions, the tail does not appear to deceleration on low-resolution low-frame rate videos. [If the FAA radar data can be trusted, then Dr. Fetzer also overlooks how the radar blips are only possible when a physical object was there for them to reflect off of. Holograms can’t do this. And as far as my research shows, holograms can’t be projected like he supposes.]

      So not only does Mr. Rogue neither understand Dr. Jenkins (analysis) nor Dr. Fetzer’s (errors), but his unwarranted reference to Dr. Fetzer displays his true aptitude for physics: nada.

      1. Do not think Señor, that it escaped my notice that you said:

        “The center of mass plays a role in predicting lots of things, but it has little to do with determining when a penetrating object will slow down. Your attempt at a physics explanation is bullshit and reflects your poor understanding.”

        ……
        But then you say:

        “In such a scenario, it is not this boojie woojie (old) “center of mass” not slowing the plane’s tail until it gets to the towers. No! If anything, *the center of (new)* mass..”

        ……
        Why is it then, that you mention this center of mass, the ‘new mass’ if, “it has little to do with determining when a penetrating object will slow down”?

        Furthermore this agrees with the exact scenario I am positing, other than your missing the salient point: that the_loss_of_velocity_is_imperceptible:

        It bears repeating that the Sandia test determined that there was no measurable change in velocity before or during impact to within an error of 3%.

        A 3% margin of error in a computation showing zero change in velocity is statistically immaterial, as it is imperceptible to human senses.

        This is after-all the whole point of this exercise – that the change in velocity is imperceptible to human senses. This is why people are baffled by the appearance, and why screwy propositions are made that the imagery is, “unbelievable” and “obviously faked”, or “physically impossible” {Fetzer}.

        Now I will tell you why you made this preamble. It enabled you to disparage me by saying I have a poor understanding of physics, that you characterized as ‘bullshit’. This is the type of disingenuous rhetorical gamemanship you continually serve up to me, whether as blatant as what I have just laid out here, or more convoluted and subtle. You are sashadik Señor.

        ww

      2. [Y]ou made this preamble, [because] it enabled you to disparage me by saying I have a poor understanding of physics, that you characterized as ‘bullshit’.

        Not just this one, I can reference many examples from Mr. Rogue’s tenure on T&S of his poor understanding of physics. [For example: Can he say “nuclear fizzle”?]

        He likes to position himself as being a genius of art with carry-over brilliance in all sorts of harder science areas. But how he positions himself and where he actually turns out to be on that understanding continium are proven to be two different matters.

        Here is yet another example of poor comprehension skills:

        Why is it then, that you mention this center of mass, the ‘new mass’ if, “it has little to do with determining when a penetrating object will slow down”?

        It came from Mr. Rogue. Mr. Rogue had written erroneously on July 15, 2012 at 7:13 pm:

        In crash physics it is shown that an object striking an object at rest [in a state of inertia] the object does not slow down at the moment of impact, but only when the center of mass is reached.

        Mr. Rogue’s imprecise writing on physics highlighted above… simply has no basis in truth.

        In crash physics, whether or not the trailing edge of the object is perceived to slow down at the moment of impact depends on the structural energy associated with the materials of the vehicle.

        At lower velocities, the crash energy might be in the range of the structural energy of the vehicle’s materials. As a result, the vehicle’s structure is able to deform and consume energy. The deformation results in the trailing edge decelerating. At the low end, the crash energy might be insufficient to dislodge material from the vehicle. Center of mass is dependent on deformation. At the upper end of lower velocities, material might get dislodged, in which case center of (new) mass would change.

        At extremely high velocities, the crash energy completely overwhelms the structural energy of the vehicle’s materials very early. These materials are splattered & shattered & shredded from the main mass overshadowing and eliminating any possible deformation energy of the materials leading to perceptible deceleration of the trailing edge. Deformation doesn’t happen, because the materials failed spectacularly. The center of (main) mass keeps shifting backward as matter on the crashing edge violently exits the equation. This is what I was calling the “center of (new) mass.”

        This is the type of disingenuous rhetorical gamemanship you continually serve up to me.

        2. Become incredulous and indignant.

        Errors & mistakes are errors & mistakes. Mr. Rogue made them, and has had the misfortune of me “continually serving them up to him.” It isn’t disingenuous on my part. As for Mr. Rogue’s part?

        You are sashadik Señor.

        #5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule.
        18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad.

        I am looking forward to Mr. Rogue addressing me in the future as Señor El Sashadik.

        Your support of Fetzer’s Wonderland-Physics shows your true aptitude Señor.

        4. Use a straw man
        10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
        13. Alice in Wonderland Logic

  26. Craig McKee said: “I tried to interview one of the “amateur” video makers from 9/11, Luc Courchesne of Montreal (the disappearing wing video), and he refused to talk to me.”

    Actually , its disappearing wing and tail, prior to building entry🙂 . I’m not at all surprised he does not want to talk.

    Craig McKee said: “But your idea of talking to a structural engineer is a good one. A video expert would also be good. ”

    Why bother? Don’t you have an expert on just about everything already on hand, right here? Why not take their “expert” word on it all?

    Regards onebornfree

  27. Analysis of F-4 Phantom Jet Impact Velocity

    Sandia National Laboratories conducted a crash test of an F-4 Phantom jet impacting a massive concrete block in 1988. Picture 1 is a still frame from the video segment used in the analysis (http://www.sandia.gov/videos2005/F4-crash.asx) with an added overlay of blue and red equally spaced vertical lines. Although this particular segment is running in slow motion, Sandia reports that the initial velocity of the plane before impact was 480 MPH
    (http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html).

    The absolute time measured in units of frames (1/30 of a second) when the tail-end was
    aligned to each vertical line is tabulated in Table 1. Since the error bars are quite large (+/- ½ frame), the time difference was calculated between every 2 vertical lines. For example, in Picture 1, the time difference calculated at the first red vertical line is taken as the time it takes for the tail-end to traverse both adjacent blue vertical lines, and the result placed
    into the row labeled “Red 1” in Table 1.

    Since velocity = change in distance / change in time, and the distance is constant (the distance between every other vertical line), the relative velocity ~ 1/change in time and is tabulated in the third column of Table 1. The average of this column is computed and is used to normalize the data, resulting in column 4. The resulting graph of the normalized velocity is shown in Figure 2. The red and blue vertical lines in the graph correspond with those in Picture 1 (left-aligned). An arrow marks where the point of impact begins. Each data point should be thought of as a rolling average over the distance of 2 units of the x-axis.

    Data could not be taken for the last 20% of the impact since the tail was obscured by debris.

    No change in velocity was measured before or during impact to within an error of
    3%.

    [See: Picture 1: F-4 Phantom jet impacting a massive concrete block (far
    right). Equally spaced blue and red vertical lines are overlayed on
    the original video. At URL below:]

    http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf – [Appendix]
    ……
    ww

  28. Back to a comment about media, and how even “alternative media” has been folded into the corporatist tent:

    “Democracy Now” and the “Progressive” Alternative Media: Valued Cheerleaders For Imperialism and War — By Finian Cunningham

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31874

    I have called NPR, “National Propaganda Radio” for years…and have seen Amy Goodman as a sellout for as long as she has been a “TV Personality” [the medium is the message].

    It should be recalled that no ‘alternative media’ jumped on 9/11 as an inside job – nowhere but the web…and that was all constructed by scratch post event.

    This far after the fact, it is easy to loose sight of the powerful effect of the first film – LOOSE CHANGE and what a booster shot to the movement it was.

    Anyway, I encourage all to have a look at Cunningham’s essay – it deals with some pressing current events.

    ww

  29. I should think most would have noticed by now that Señor Beancounter el Once, never makes a comment on this blog that isn’t a shot aimed at myself…he is focused on my ass like a Hellfire Missile.

    Most of the commentators here will address one another as the conversations proceed, but for Señor el Sashadik, it is all an obsessive and persistent attack on just about anything I say.

    So, hey beancounter, tally your bananas and list how many of your posts are and are not aimed at banging on my ass about anything and everything.

    This is called ‘stalking,’ and I think it is very obvious that it has become your entire game here.

    ww

    1. So, hey beancounter, tally your bananas and list how many of your posts are and are not aimed at banging on my ass about anything and everything.

      100% of my 4 published postings [including this one] in this thread were aimed at banging Mr. Rogue’s ass.

      But in classic (#4) straw man fashion, it wasn’t about “anything and everything,” because Mr. Rogue has ~31 postings (28.7%) here. Were I “focused on Mr. Rogue’s ass like a Hellfire Missile”, we could expect to see 31 postings from me instead of the 4 (four) that are here.

      All 100% of my 4 postings addressed specifically Mr. Rogue errors. Thereby handily disproving Mr. Rogue’s classic (#5) assertions:

      For Señor el Sashadik, it is all an obsessive and persistent attack on just about anything I say. …

      In furtherence of tallying bananas, let us review stats from July 12, 2012 at 4:19 pm, because they deomonstrate that Mr. Rogue’s own participation exposed his ass as a target to be aimed at.

      A crude analysis of 8 articles [up to the date-stamp]:

      Mr. Rogue’s made 1,141 comments on those 8 articles, which was 38.2%.

      Mr. Rogue wrote 29.2% of all the words [664k] in the comment sections to those articles.

      Mr. Rogue’s word count exceeded mine on all articles except for three.

      Mr. Rogue has positioned himself as the dominant participant on T&S. What comes with that territory? The above posting from Mr. Rogue should be viewed as the “‘How dare you!’ gambit” [from #2. Become incredulous and indignant.]

      “How dare Señor El Sashadik focus on my ass like a Hellfire Missile and demonstrate my gaps in my copy&paste knowledge of physics and expose my blatant errors!”

      The word stats for the last three in the list of 8 invalidates Mr. Rogue’s (#18) assertion:

      Señor Beancounter el Once, never makes a comment on this blog that isn’t a shot aimed at myself.

      Mr. Rogue seems a little bit touchy in a #18 sort of a way. Could also be Artificial Emotions.

      1. And so the STALKING becomes more intense…

        Also mentioning “fizzling” while not mentioning woops, “let’s not call it EMP” and failing to mention FOUR YEARS…[long enough to attend and graduate from college], as a CHUMP for the NPT.

        Failing to mention that not once did he challenge him in the whole thread of Fetzer’s bullshit “Mass Differential” as the only thing that mattered in the plane v building scenario. No, instead he argued against Keenan Roberts and I instead, we were pointing out Fetzer’s BS the whole time.

        So if Señor Beancounter wasn’t defending Fetzers lame physics bullshit – I’d like to know what that was all about.

        And there are likely many more ‘woops’ on the beancounters carousel – but I don’t count beans and don’t have a handy list of them.

        Keenan was right about one thing: Señor is like a tarbaby, touch him once and your are stuck to him. Maybe that’s the true meaning of the moniker “Once”, rather than this Spanish for eleven lollipop he unwraps and re-raps for us.

        So what do you teach Señor? ‘Engineering’ or ‘Disingenuous Rhetoric’?..or is it a blend of the two?

        ww

      2. And so the STALKING becomes more intense…

        It ain’t stalking (a) if I’m addressing specific errors in Mr. Rogue’s work and (b) if Mr. Rogue is addressing me and I’m responding.

        A nice try at framing the discussion in his favor with such negative stalking connotations. Mr. Rogue is free to go back to Coalition Of The Obvious without any interference from me, or any of the other multitude of web cafes where he loosens his skinny-black tie and whiles away the hours.

        Also mentioning “fizzling” while not mentioning woops, “let’s not call it EMP” and failing to mention FOUR YEARS…[long enough to attend and graduate from college], as a CHUMP for the NPT.

        Thanks for bringing these up. They reflect Mr. Rogue’s skew, his poor understanding of physics, and his lies.

        (1) Ain’t no “woops” about it. EMP stands for electromagnetic pulse, and is associated with nuclear weapons that go boom. Such a singular pulse is generally not associated with directed energy weapons. However, DEW devices emit electromagnetic energy. When observing the evidence, it is first important to understand what electromagnetic energy can do and how it could possible account for the evidence. Then we can split hairs whether it was pulsed or constant and what its source might have been.

        This is the nugget of Truth that agent Rogue wants to sweep aside with his straw man games of “let’s not call it EMP”. I wanted it called simply “electromagnetic energy” so that bases of DEW and nukes could be covered in one go. [Mr. Rogue’s faux issues with this demonstrate his lack of understanding, except for how he uses it to distract the thread into rhetorical detours.]

        (2) Yep, I was a CHUMP for four years on NPT. I spent that entire time looking for convincing arguments to the contrary, but other than name calling (e.g., “chump”), nobody could take it on. Thanks to Mr. OneSliceShort (and no thanks to agent Rogue) for providing convincing evidence to swing my opinion a different direction. Yes, indeedy.

        What of it? Agent Rogue has been a chump of super-duper nano-thermite for much longer. Not that it wasn’t present, but that it can’t account for all the evidence, most spectacularly the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. On this theme, the audience should note Mr. Rogue’s inability to perform high school math to calculate quantities needed for either the destruction or the hot-spot duration underscores my earlier point about his poor understanding of physics.

        Failing to mention that not once did [Senor El Once] challenge [Dr. Fetzer] in the whole thread of Fetzer’s bullshit “Mass Differential” as the only thing that mattered in the plane v building scenario.

        Let’s provide more context. The thread in question had 875 postings whereby 288 (32.9%) came from agent Rogue and another 180 (20.6%) from Dr. Fetzer. OVERWHELMING!

        So naturally, my measely 41 postings (4.7%) seem insignificant,… as would the seven actual postings from me addressing Dr. Fetzer directly.

        See how easy agent Rogue’s lies are exposed. Not once, eh? As easy as searching for “Dear Dr. Fetzer,” in that thread:

        April 18, 2012 at 3:30 pm: Got on his case about “Faked.”
        April 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm: Told him he was defending NPT and holograms poorly.
        April 30, 2012 at 12:07 pm: Ripped apart holography.
        May 1, 2012 at 1:53 pm: Ripped apart his 10 points of agreement.
        May 2, 2012 at 11:40 am: Ripped apart his use of “video fakery” and “no planes theory.”

        No, instead he argued against Keenan Roberts and I instead, we were pointing out Fetzer’s BS the whole time.

        You mean Hit-and-Run (#6) agent Keenan Roberts who was proven to not be a man of his word and seemed to have been sent to distract the thread?

        So if Señor Beancounter wasn’t defending Fetzers lame physics bullshit – I’d like to know what that was all about.

        Here’s what it is about. I have a life and a job that doesn’t pay me to post. There was no need for me to get involved beyond my 4.7% participation. And the five links above show when I did get involved and how that played out for “Fetzers lame physics bullshit.”

        As further proof of Mr. Rogue’s lies, this forum knows me well-enough by now to determine when I am defending or attacking something. My lurking silence doesn’t mean squat.

        And in case Mr. Rogue missed it in his 288 flooding postings on that thread, my arguments in this thread about velocity-squared and its correlation to energy come directly from contemplating my exchange with his tag-teaming little buddy, Keenan Roberts. How ironic.

        Mr. Rogue is under no obligation to respond to my postings. The flavor of his postings is becoming more and more distasteful. Guess that’s what happens when valid agent buttons get pressed; the agent digs for more ways to attack that end up exposing even more of his agency ways.

        Señor El Once // [slash-slash]

      3. Señor calls me a liar thus:

        “See how easy agent Rogue’s lies are exposed. Not once, eh? As easy as searching for “Dear Dr. Fetzer,” in that thread:
        – April 18, 2012 at 3:30 pm: Got on his case about “Faked.”
        – April 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm: Told him he was defending NPT and holograms poorly.
        – April 30, 2012 at 12:07 pm: Ripped apart holography.
        – May 1, 2012 at 1:53 pm: Ripped apart his 10 points of agreement.
        – May 2, 2012 at 11:40 am: Ripped apart his use of “video fakery” and “no planes theory.””

        But I pointed out that:

        ‘not once did he challenge him in the whole thread of Fetzer’s bullshit “Mass Differential” as the only thing that mattered in the plane v building scenario.’

        And not one of Señor’s challenges to Fetzer have to do with his “Mass Differential” as the only thing that mattered in the plane v building scenario.

        The “Lie” falls back in YOUR lap beancounter.

        ww

      4. The “Lie” falls back in YOUR lap beancounter.

        Oooo-uh. Before which Mr. Rogue writes:

        But I pointed out that:
        ‘not once did he challenge him in the whole thread of Fetzer’s bullshit “Mass Differential” as the only thing that mattered in the plane v building scenario.’

        Of course I didn’t, because Mr. Rogue was. My value-add would have been insignificant to what amounted to his truther-legend-establishing 288 posting triumph versus Fetzer’s 180 out of eight hundred something total. My posting count (41) indeed struggled in the lower double digits, and is proven insignificant by comparison.

        And not one of Señor’s challenges to Fetzer have to do with his “Mass Differential” as the only thing that mattered in the plane v building scenario.

        Of course I didn’t, because “Mass Differential” was Mr. Rogue’s thang, and not my interest. I preferred lurking in on the Mr. Rogue and Dr. Fetzer circus that displayed many amazing eye-opening features.

        Such manufactured drama from Mr. Rogue:

        The “Lie” falls back in YOUR lap beancounter.

        El-Oh-El. // [slash-slash]

      5. No “drama” Señor, Just the facts.

        Other facts such as – NO you didn’t just “leave it up to me”, nor were you silent in the debate with Fetzer on the issue, you in fact argued against Keenan and myself, as vigorously and disingenuously as you are here against me now.

        Again, you can count your beans, and lay them on the table for display and then use that half walnut-shell and do your fancy hand tricks…but all anyone has to do is go back to that thread and read the thing in sequence for context.

        Once a chump always a chump Señor. Now you are chumping yourself.

        Cracked pots are useless, and the materials they are made of should be recycled, or shelved as curios.

        ww

      6. Other facts such as – NO you didn’t just “leave it up to me”, nor were you silent in the debate with Fetzer on the issue, you in fact argued against Keenan and myself, as vigorously and disingenuously as you are here against me now.

        Without substantiating links, all we have to rely on is Mr. Rogue’s (proven faulty) short-term memory.

        The following April 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm posting is as much an example of me defending Sir Isaac Newton as it is of me defending Dr. Fetzer from “science-challenged attackers”:

        Dr. Fetzer wrote:

        …same effects as those lampposts traveling 500 mph hitting a stationary plane: its wing would have been ripped off.

        Mr. HybridRogue1 replied:

        I have heard this assertion before, and I don’t buy it. There is the whole issue of weigh– coupled with inertia. You cannot simply reverse the scenario as stated above. It is not the same physics as a bat and a ball. The overall weight of the plane and the forward momentum is the core factors in this equation.

        Exposing your credentials in boojie woojie high school physics again, Mr. HybridRogue1? Man, you can imagine how much I hate pointing this out.

        To your chagrin, Newtonian physics does allow thinkers to reverse “a plane’s wings hitting a lamp post at 500 mph” to become “a lamp post hitting a plane’s wings at 500 mph” or even “a lamp post flung by a tornado at 250 mph into a plane’s wing traveling 250 mph in the opposite direction.”

        The point in all of this is that damage to the plane’s wing would be crippling and questions whether the plane could even remain in flight.

        Of course, all of us are making the bad-ass assumption that the plane was actually traveling at 500 mph at ~100 feet above sea level.

        Or surely, when Mr. Rogue references me “[arguing] against Keenan and [himself], as vigorously and disingenuously as … now”, he is referring to this “embarrassing” posting from me from April 19, 2012 at 9:05 am :

        Dear Mr. KeenanRoberts … You make excellent points on No-Planes (NP) and its physics that certainly have me thinking and reconsidering perspectives. In fact, many nuggets of truth on related but tangential topics have been jarred free for me to see.

        The reason that these topics — NPT/VIdeo Fakery/Exotic Weapons/Judy Wood — keep re-appearing is that they have unaddressed truths [e.g., massive energy requirements, anomalous after effects, full-sprectrum dominance in the military-corporate media]. Normal duped useful idiots like myself see this, but we are few who can articulate a stink. Any 9/11 theory-du-jour to be valid is required to address these nuggets of truth.

        Or quote possibly this late entry of mine from May 3, 3012 at 12:11 pm demonstrates me “[arguing] against Keenan and [himself], as vigorously and disingenuously as … now”:

        As the resident Truth & Shadows champion of NPT (no planes theory), I now concede the point and will no longer be advocating it. My heartfelt apologies to this forum and to any participants whom I may have skewered with my NPT rhetoric.

        Mr. OneSliceShort’s excellent postings on Pilots For 9/11 Truth refute with evidence, science, and proper analysis everything that had duped me the last 4 years or so into believing the NPT.

        When considering what got me to change my tune, it was none of Mr. HybridRogue’s 31.5%, Dr. Fetzer’s 20%, or Mr. Roberts 6.7%. Credit goes to Mr. OneSliceShorts modest 9.1%.

        As Mr. Rogue suggests:

        …all anyone has to do is go back to that thread and read the thing in sequence for context.

        El-Oh-El. //

      7. Señor slash-slash says:

        To your chagrin, Newtonian physics does allow thinkers to reverse “a plane’s wings hitting a lamp post at 500 mph” to become “a lamp post hitting a plane’s wings at 500 mph” or even “a lamp post flung by a tornado at 250 mph into a plane’s wing traveling 250 mph in the opposite direction.”

        It is hardly to my chagrin Señor, and this is discussed on that forum as well. The point is, it doesn’t make any difference if the frame is switched from ‘plane hitting building’ to ‘building hitting plane’, and I point this out to Fetzer several times on that thread.

        The real point is that the frame includes not only the mass of the building, but its state of inertia in the actual frame – of its position on a planet with a north-south-east-west vectors. Both Momentum and Inertia are described within this Frame, not in some vacuum. Momentum must have both a velocity and a specific direction of that velocity – as described in the actual ‘Frame’ of the formula.

        Momentum has three components: Mass | Velocity | Specific Direction [vector]

        For the building you have only one component – Mass [500,000T] as per Velocity=0 | Specific Direction=0 [vector quality] — these are the actual conditions of the Frame of planet Earth, Manhattan, on 9/11/2001.

        Your analogy of the lamp post hitting a planes wing is skewed and actually has to do with crash dynamics – not ‘Mass-ratio’…as I scolded Fetzer for doing every time he argued crash dynamics in the name of ‘Mass-ratio’.

        [And don’t you dare come back squawking you didn’t say it had to do with “mass-ratio” as the sequence of your argument leading to your flying lamp post comes directly from – my “chagrin” at ‘reversal’ of the dynamics of the physics of Momentum]

        Yes, just before the curtains fell on the show there, it suddenly occurred to you.

        >] Just like the EMP blooper suddenly occurred to you 7/8ths through that argument.

        >] Just like the absurdity of the “dustification” of the steel in the towers suddenly occurred to you, in the Judy Wood thread.

        But the question remains Señor; What are you trying to prove here? What is this all about?

        Ego v Ego?

        I suggest we drop it here Señor, and let who will go to the thread for the context in which this all took place.

        Why don’t you have an Odell’s, maybe that will act as a lubricant to help extract your foot from your mouth.

        ww

      8. Look Once,

        Why don’t we drop the spinning gyre and simply agree to the bottom line:

        >That real airplanes smashed into the WTC towers on 9/11.

        >That these were not the commercial airliners the official story claims they were.

        >That these airplane strikes and jet fuel fires had nothing at all to do with the final demise of the towers.

        Otherwise all we are left with is trading insults…and that is not only boring me, but I am sure the rest of the forum as well.

        ww

      9. In the middle of his spinning, Mr. Rogue has a lucid moment and asks:

        What are you trying to prove here? What is this all about?

        Just laying out Mr. Rogue’s dizzy disinfo games for all to see.

        Don’t happen all the time. Mr. Rogue makes many interesting comments. But when it comes to themes that he has been proven to be less-than-objective on [as if it were an agenda], Mr. Rogue avoids the theme and dives into the games.

        It is hardly to my chagrin Señor.

        Sure it was. It was a ding to Mr. Rogue’s “genius” ego and intelligence that he got wrong a concept from first semester physics. In trying to best Dr. Fetzer, Mr. Rogue was making assertions about physics that weren’t true, and I called him on it. I’ve done this several times through out our discussion history, some of which are alread documented above.

        The point is, it doesn’t make any difference if the frame is switched from ‘plane hitting building’ to ‘building hitting plane’, and I point this out to Fetzer several times on that thread.

        … Except that the context of the discussion in which I was involved was “plane hitting lamp” and “lamp hitting plane” having to do with the Pentagon plane. It was leading to further proof as to why the Pentagon plane did not knock down light poles and was a flyover.

        The other context to which Mr. Rogue refers, I’ll just take his word that it happened [while I was in lurker mode and doing my best to ignore Mr. Rogue] and that he can cough up links. It wasn’t a discussion (or flame war) that interested me until later when Fetzer began talking about holograms.

        [And don’t you dare come back squawking you didn’t say it had to do with “mass-ratio” as the sequence of your argument leading to your flying lamp post comes directly from – my “chagrin” at ‘reversal’ of the dynamics of the physics of Momentum]

        I’ll dare. [squawk]I didn’t write it had to do with “mass-ratio”[/squawk] because my corrective posting on physics was from April 17, while the first occurrence of “mass ratio” was April 22, a Sunday of a weekend in which I would not have been online. [My postings jump from April 19 to April 24.]

        Mr. Rogue is wrong with regards to the sequence of the discussion and the level of my involvement. More spin. More games. More dishonesty.

        There was no EMP blooper. More hype from Mr. Rogue.

        There was no absurdity of the “dustification” of the steel in the towers suddenly occurring to me, in the Judy Wood thread. Dustification of steel was never a point I argued; dustification of content is a different matter. Thus, more misframing from Mr. Rogue.

        The point is that Mr. Rogue is a dishonest broker when it comes to discussions with me. Certainly, it gets his goat that I champion “nuclear DEW hybrid esotic weapons,” which immediately relegates me to a subspecies compared to Mr. Rogue. Although I wanted to believe his “chemical conventional” means of destruction, the math and science properly applied trash it as being the Occam Razor primary mechanism even before one recognizes that it doesn’t address all the evidence. Mr. Rogue does not like having his genius nose rubbed in this or that fact that the 9/11TM needs to be looking into other mechanisms of destruction and energy for 9/11.

        I don’t let go of my nuggets of truth, and I don’t succumb easily to Mr. Rogue’s negative debate tactics. And that drives the man to distraction.

        Thus, instead of Mr. Rogue ignoring me and going on his merry-go-round way, his ego feels that his agenda has suffered a set-back. The result is Mr. Rogue reaching again and again into the disinformation playbook: creating straw men, putting words in my mouth, misframing, ad homenim… Anything to keep rational discussion away from considering how aspects of 9/11 were nuclear and probably DEW.

        Like John Wright (of 9/11 Blogger) and David Chandler before him, Mr. Rogue’s promised objective good, bad, and ugly book review of Dr. Wood’s textbook is missing in action. Certainly it was sidetracked by the time suck of the circus acts that Mr. Rogue performs here.

        //

  30. Dennis said: “different rules of evidence there. basically the eyewitnesses would have to be brought in to testify, unless some exception to the hearsay rule applied, e.g. “unavailabilty.” ”

    Yes, I understand. However it is still the exact same principle, no?

    Just as with all alleged prosecution video evidence [a type of “eyewitness testimony” if you think about it] , which must be presented in court and the individual authors of it crossed and re-crossed by defense attorneys in front of a jury, plus chain of custody issues explored etc. etc., so must any actual alleged “eyewitnesses” for the prosecutions case be subject to cross and re-cross by the defense as per the rules of evidence specified in the Bill of Rights that are supposed to apply to all Federal criminal trials, correct?

    In other words, at trial [and yes I understand that this would never happen in real life in this country any more -only a show trial is now possible] , _none_ of the alleged evidence for the prosecution [video, seismic, eyewitness testimony , newspaper or TV media reports or whatever] is to be merely accepted at face value and presumed to be genuine until after any/ all of that evidence has been presented in court and rigorously cross examined, and even re-cross-examined by the Defense, in front of the jury, correct?

    False In One False In All?

    Furthermore, if the members of the jury conclude that a witness for the prosecution [either video or eyewitness or ” whatever”] has been demonstrated by the defense to have given false testimony, in even just one instance, isn’t the judge supposed to at some point instruct the jury of the “false in one, false in all” principle, whereby individual jurors have the absolute right to disregard _all_ “evidence” supplied by the “false witness” in question?

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. “at trial [and yes I understand that this would never happen in real life in this country any more -only a show trial is now possible]”~OBF

      So, that is the bottom line, and everything else is Wonderland bullshit.

      So we have to figure out that which is reasonably ‘authentic’ ourselves. And as far as video, we have to have at least a modicum of technical facility to forensically examine such evidence.

      As such it has been shown BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that neither you nor Shack have the slightest idea of what is and isn’t evidence of video manipulation.
      But your whole agenda is to throw EVERYTHING out, with these phony ‘legal’ arguments…and even there you don’t know what the hell you speak to.

      Shack is shown to be an utter charlatan, and you Onebornfree, riding his coat tails get the same taggant.

      ww

  31. obf,
    re: film vs eye-witness evidence
    films offered into evidence would have to be authenticated before being accepted into evidence as say, “prosecution exhibit 1.” witnesses are just sworn in.

    re: “none of the alleged evidence. . . is to be merely accepted at face value and presumed to be genuine.” more exactly, unless the film is authenticated, it won’t even make it into evidence.

    re: “False In One False In All” no, it’s not all or nothing. generally a jury is free to decide that witness x was being truthful about a, b, or c, but not necessarily d. in short, they may believe all, some, or none of what x testified to.

  32. Dennis said: “re: “False In One False In All” no, it’s not all or nothing. generally a jury is free to decide that witness x was being truthful about a, b, or c, but not necessarily d. in short, they may believe all, some, or none of what x testified to.”

    But are they free, in your opinion, to be able to conclude “false in one, false in all” on an individual [i.e. per juror] basis ?

    And isn’t there a specific instruction to that effect [ the legal principle “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus”] that either a defense lawyer, or a judge is supposed to make the jurors aware of : http://www.fff.org/comment/com0307i.asp

    Regards,onebornfree.

    1. “And isn’t there a specific instruction to that effect [ the legal principle “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus”] that either a defense lawyer, or a judge is supposed to make the jurors aware of…”~Regards,onebornfree

      Yea, and there is also the issue of instructing the jury of their power of nullification, which is no longer mentioned anymore, which trumps any of this “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus”…a Jury can come to any decision it pleases – that is the bottom line to “trial by jury” as per Common Law.

      And none of this matters OBF – NONE OF IT. This whole line of ‘legalese’ mumbo jumbo is meant to distract from the fact that you don’t know the slightest thing about video forensic examination…it’s a stall, a hand-wave, your whole song and dance is bullshit.

      ww

    2. obf,

      re: “But are they [the jurors] free, in your opinion, to be able to conclude “false in one, false in all” on an individual [i.e. per juror] basis?” yes. and they might also conclude, false in one but understandable. true with regard to everything else. the jury system is wild and unpredictable, which is why most cases get settled.

      re: “And isn’t there a specific instruction to that effect [ the legal principle “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus”] that either a defense lawyer, or a judge is supposed to make the jurors aware of.” defense lawyers (and prosecutors) have no right to direct the jury. the judge can instruct as he wishes, but risks reversal on appeal.

  33. dennis says:
    re: “But are they [the jurors] free, in your opinion, to be able to conclude “false in one, false in all” on an individual [i.e. per juror] basis?” yes. and they might also conclude, false in one but understandable. true with regard to everything else. the jury system is wild and unpredictable, which is why most cases get settled.”

    “re: “And isn’t there a specific instruction to that effect [ the legal principle “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus”] that either a defense lawyer, or a judge is supposed to make the jurors aware of.” defense lawyers (and prosecutors) have no right to direct the jury. the judge can instruct as he wishes, but risks reversal on appeal.”

    Dennis, thank you for your opinion/ information, regards, onebornfree.

  34. dennis says: “re: film vs eye-witness evidence
    films offered into evidence would have to be authenticated before being accepted into evidence as say, “prosecution exhibit 1.” witnesses are just sworn in.”

    Who gets to decide whether or not it is authentic? Does a jury get to be involved in any way, or is it forced to accept the opinion of whomever else “authenticates” it?

    re: “none of the alleged evidence. . . is to be merely accepted at face value and presumed to be genuine.” more exactly, unless the film is authenticated, it won’t even make it into evidence.”

    Please briefly describe [if you can], how you either know [or imagine] this film authentification process would occur in a federal criminal trial prosecution.

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. the judge decides whether or not a film clip (being “marked up” by the attorney as a prelude to introducing it into evidence) has been authenticated sufficiently to be taken into evidence. once it’s in evidence, the jury can decide what the film means to them, e.g., persuasive or unpersuasive.
      one way to get a film into evidence, roughly: lawyer “marks up” the film for evidence, then puts the cameraman who took the film on the stand to tell the story about how the film came into existence. then (outside of the jury’s purview) they’d run the film and get the cameraman to say “yes, this is what i saw and filmed.” the film should then be introduced into evidence (assuming it’s relevant to the issue at hand and there are no other sustainable objections) and later presented to the jury for viewing.
      for the record, altho i’ve done some courtroom work, i don’t consider myself a “trial attorney.”

  35. onebornfree,

    Please briefly describe [if you can], how you either know [or imagine] this film authentification process would occur in a Clues Forum exposition.

    Do it for Dennis since you are “ignoring” me {grin}.

    Regards, ww

  36. A real forensic photo analysis would begin with the image itself and the digital history information available when clicking on “Properties”. If one is working with an Adobe product, like Photoshop, Illustrator, etc, the properties history will be even more complete than that offered in a regular Windows ‘Preview’.

    jpeg digital info in Adobe Property Tree>> Description| IPTC| IPTC Extension| Camera Data| Video Data| Audio Data

    I think it is pretty much guaranteed that just about any image presented in media today, has been, if not processed, at least analyzed by Adobe product. Usually images for publication are in some way customized for the presentation.

    So the first step in photo-analysis would be to pull up the digital history embedded in a jpeg or tiff. If it has a history of layers, one might begin to suspect some extra manipulation besides prep for publication.

    Still not a single known incident of a 9/11 photocomp with the hidden Adobe layers in ten years.

    ww

  37. dennis said:”one way to get a film into evidence, roughly: lawyer “marks up” the film for evidence, then puts the cameraman who took the film on the stand to tell the story about how the film came into existence. then (outside of the jury’s purview) they’d run the film and get the cameraman to say “yes, this is what i saw and filmed.” the film should then be introduced into evidence (assuming it’s relevant to the issue at hand and there are no other sustainable objections) and later presented to the jury for viewing.”

    OK, so basically you are saying that the defense would get its chance to disprove the authenticity of the video evidence in front of the judge, but not in front of the jury, and that only if and when it has been judged as authentic evidence , that the jury would get to see it, correct?

    Or are you saying that the judge, and only the judge , gets to decide what is/is not authentic evidence , _despite_ a defense’s objections? [i.e. the judge and only the judge ultimately gets to decide what are and what are not “sustainable objections”?] .

    However, if you know, [and whatever the case may be], once accepted as real evidence and shown to the jury, is there any way the defense can then try prove it is not actually authentic if it needs to; if,for example, new information comes to light and they discover, via a previously unknown witness [or whatever] that the video previously judged as authentic is actually a fraud? Or is everybody stuck with the fake “authentic” evidence because the judge already deemed it so?

    Regards,onebornfree.

  38. Dear Craig,

    I wish to applaud you for the title of this thread : “Media and the 9/11 cover up”. As you know, my own 9/11 research focuses on the news media’s obvious complicity with this epochal hoax. To be sure, the MSM was (and still is) the main ‘operative unit’ enabling and protecting the wretched 9/11 psyop. Does anyone today really believe that, say – Rupert Murdoch – is a mere outsider of this scam? That he has only a marginal, peripheral role in this whole affair? And of course, the Beeb is just as much ‘in on it’ as her American sisters in crime…

    I have been busy lately tending to my forum, to my orchard – and also having some refreshing swims in the Mediterranean, what with this Italian summer’s sweltering heat. Tonite, I’ve spent quite some time reading all of this thread and – I must say – am still reeling a little for reading the flow of abuse thrown at my research, at yours truly and at Onebornfree, the only contributor here who appears to have thoughtfully examined and assessed my half-decade-long September Clues research – and our now collective, ongoing diggings at Cluesforum.info.

    On this thread alone (and you can do a word search to verify this), my research has been called “absolute poppycock”, a “psyop”, or even “COINTEL” – I myself have been called a “charlatan” – and Onebornfree has been called a “troll” with “an agenda”. Don’t get me wrong, I know full well how tricky it is to moderate a forum and keep it civil – and you do this quite admirably. However, allow me to propound that the handful of haughty, self-proclaimed “all-round experts” you have on board (I trust you know who I mean) are – wittingly or unwittingly – turning your fine blog into a disagreeable discussion platform. All I’m saying here is – please allow me to NOT respond and engage in circular debates anymore with the said “experts” (as I’ve done in the past) – and let me kindly just pop in here from time to time – and submit relevant replies and links to any queries your unbiased readers might have regarding the September Clues research.

    In fact, before getting started with this little ‘rant’ about the “experts”, all I was planning to do was to respond to one of the very first posts at the top of this thread – by “dennis”.

    Dennis asked this good question – concerning the image you have at bottom left of this page:

    “do you know the source of that photo? i have put the same question to a&e re their various video clips and photos, and am awaiting a response.. NO DISRESPECT MEANT. i just would like to test whether our visuals can be authenticated, is all. ”

    Well, that image is credited to Amy Sancetta (a Pulitzer award-winning AP photographer) and there’s QUITE some monkey business around that image – and you need not be a photo “expert” to figure it all out. Here’s a link to it – enjoy ! :

    “The WTC2 COLLAPSE IMAGE-FAMILY”
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2364903#p2364903

    Warm summer greetings!

    Simon Shack

    1. Hi Simon,

      You’re right, it has been pretty disagreeable lately. Lots of accusations going back and forth. I’ve been thinking about the issue and about whether I should create more rules for behavior. I have to be careful to be even-handed, though. I can’t come down on one person for calling someone an agent and then let someone else do it. But when it’s fair but strong condemnation, it’s pretty hard to find fault. People are allowed to say that someone’s research is dead wrong.

      I am open to feedback from any contributor about the level of decorum on the site and possible ways to improve the discourse.

      And I will read your link. I know this photo has been questioned in the past.

      1. Hi Craig,

        I will leave the discussion of ‘decorum’ to others. However I will point out that Simon Shack says that he has been paying attention to what is being said on this forum, and certainly he would have focused particularly on anything to do with his ‘work’.

        But rather than addressing any of the quite specific critiques that both OSS have made as to his ‘digital fakery’ claims, he is again silent, and dares not attempt to address those points.

        All he has done again, as is his MO, is to drop in to promote his ‘Clues Forum’.

        If Shack doesn’t have the chops to address my criticisms point by point, let his own silence stand as testament of his ineptitude.

        ww

    2. Simon Shack says:

      “Well, that image is credited to Amy Sancetta (a Pulitzer award-winning AP photographer) and there’s QUITE some monkey business around that image – and you need not be a photo “expert” to figure it all out. Here’s a link to it – enjoy !”

      What he should say is he hopes no photo “expert” will figure him out.
      On the page he refers to he says:

      “So, we are now asked to believe that four cameras captured the exact same moment in time, from extraordinarily (if not impossibly) similar viewing angles/vantage points – AND zoom ratios. One only needs to calculate the odds of this occuring in the real world.”

      The fact that it is occurring at the same moment in time is a “mystery”??? WTF?
      Yes the event happened ONCE, so capturing the images as they happened is naturally a one time chance.

      As per all cameras having “similar viewing angles/vantage points – AND zoom ratios.” – “similar” is not the same thing as the same viewing angle. And that the photographers were in seperate posititions is clear from the photo montage he presents. But as far as the Zoom Ratios, not so. One only need compare the image to frame ratio to see the differences there.

      Then the obvious ploy of showing a POV that shows the tipping angle at 21.5 in a shot showing the edge approximately straight on with the left and right faces almost exactly equal – and comparing that to his “GIF soup” where the towers are view practically straight on, is some of the most blatant bullshit I have seen from this clown.

      Whatever Shack proves to himself here, is all in his own mind, and anyone dim enough to follow his leading commentary, rather than actually looking at the images with their own eyes.

      ww

    3. Simon

      Onebornfree has also been guilty of the “limited hangout” (shill) labelling of all posters on all forums, including his one, who don’t go along with his (and your) stance that all (relevant) images and videos are fake. Just so we’re clear.

      I tried to address you at Pilotsfor911Truth and pointed you to a thread there that came about as a result of a mammoth discussion on this very issue.

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

      But you must have missed it?

      The discussion wasn’t exactly cordial but there was a very intense research based approach out of respect for Craig and regular contributor here Señor El Once.

      I’ve posted very probable explanations for the “nose out” angle, the “glitch” or “fade to black”, etc.

      The latest video posted by onebornfree regarding WTC7 is highly suggestive based on flawed information.

      Posted here (along with the reasons I object to onebornfree’s approach and attitude):

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/media-and-the-911-cover-up-bbc-accused-of-breaking-its-own-fairness-rules/#comment-7937

      I’m sure you’re aware of his behaviour as you’re using the same derogatory remarks he has made to honest criticism. I’m guilty of calling him a “troll” because he has been trolling.

      On this thread alone (and you can do a word search to verify this), my research has been called “absolute poppycock”, a “psyop”, or even “COINTEL” – I myself have been called a “charlatan” – and Onebornfree has been called a “troll” with “an agenda”. Don’t get me wrong, I know full well how tricky it is to moderate a forum and keep it civil – and you do this quite admirably. However, allow me to propound that the handful of haughty, self-proclaimed “all-round experts” you have on board (I trust you know who I mean) are – wittingly or unwittingly – turning your fine blog into a disagreeable discussion platform. All I’m saying here is – please allow me to NOT respond and engage in circular debates anymore with the said “experts” (as I’ve done in the past) – and let me kindly just pop in here from time to time – and submit relevant replies and links to any queries your unbiased readers might have regarding the September Clues research.

      Maybe there’d be more decorum if the proper form of debate were adhered to? Namely some form of response? Details? Not broad generalizations.

      The nitty gritty. Instead of the equally “haughty” dump and run tactics employed by other posters that sometimes drop in.

      Cheers

      1. Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

        Regarding “R.I.P. – No Plane Theory” http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

        Apologies. I missed the thread. Not enough time in the day for all the time-sucks that demand our attention, I guess. I had my blinders on. [Who am I kidding? I’m not even registered on Pilots9/11T.]

        Well done. My only critique actually also relates to Mr. TamborineMan’s wonderful posting about the scene at the NPT wake that closed with banging sounds from within “the coffin, the lid nailed down and ‘the stars and stripes’ draped over it, with a little bunch of flowers (that have seen better days), casually flung on top.”

        You see, the butterfly trying to emerge from these confines is: NCPT!!! [No Commercial Plane Theory.]

        Thanks for the respectful reference. Yes, sincher for me were (1) the video of the last twelve seconds of UA175 that shows with 3D modeling how the videos of the seemingly different flight paths does correspond to a single flight path, (2) contemplation about what velocity-squared at high velocities does to the collision energy with respect to the structural energy of the vehicle materials, (3) demonstrations thereof with the rocket sled splitting a car from MythBusters, and (4) the Sandia & other Mythbuster videos showing high velocities versus “common vehicle materials.”

        Kudo again.

        //

      2. You see, the butterfly trying to emerge from these confines is: NCPT!!! [No Commercial Plane Theory.]

        Thanks Señor. That term should be a reasonable, half-way house base for discussion and is in fact exactly what I believe the evidence points to. It’s just the illogical and absurd play on words to squeeze holograms and blanket fakery á la Fetzerspeak into what should be a straightforward statement we can all agree on.

        And believe me, if clear evidence pointed to anything I’ve ever rejected, I’d be all over it like a rash. The “nuggets of truth” are everywhere It’s just individual conclusions and wordsmithery that add more dirt to the pan.

      3. Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

        The “nuggets of truth” are everywhere. It’s just individual conclusions and wordsmithery that add more dirt to the pan.

        I know you weren’t aiming this at me and I don’t take it personally, Mr. OneSliceShort, but I plead guilty to the charge anyway. [joke on]“Too cheap for a second pan, I like my campfire-style pan-fried 9/11 eggs sunny-side up and so gritty, they crunch.”[joke off]

        If clear evidence pointed to anything I’ve ever rejected, I’d be all over it like a rash.

        A revelation came to me while performing in the circus of the Tritium report and Dr. Jones’ “no nukes” paper. Unchallenged was the authenticity of the Tritium report. More importantly like a Magician waving his distracting wand, no one thinks to ask for companion reports on Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc. radiation. No one expects to get them. No one will believe their contents if they existed.

        Thus, you should have no fear of my “individual conclusions and wordsmithery” giving you a rash, because, gosh darn it! We ain’t never gonna see no “clear evidence” or companion reports or paper-trail to substantiate some of my wild-ass bat-shit crazy nuking DEW theories. [Only nuggets of truth needing to be adequately addressed.]

        Depressing.

        On a completely different topic, I tend to “carve out my personal time” very early in the day (4:30 am), like by going to the fitness club. I can observe the sky before dawn. Man, it is awesome! Mars & Venus are aligned, yet a third “star” that flickers red/green (top/bottom, almost in Morse Code but almost like a Police Car’s red/blue warning lights flashing in the distance) makes it a triangle right there above the horizon until the sun comes up. [Monday had a cressant moon in the mix.] By 5:15 am (MST), these wonders are obscured, so the earlier the better.

        And today I observe for the first time (although they may have been present before) a small cluster of stars just above the top planet. Six brighter ones in the cluster look like to be arranged like the little dipper only smaller. MAKE AN EFFORT TO SEE THIS CELESTIAL EVENT playing in an early morning sky near you!!! You can always go back to bed and sleep some more afterward.

        And this little celestial nugget of truth may or may not be relevant, but it is certainly a sight to behold! [Wonder (a) if I should be prepping, and (b) if my “genetic stock” is worthy of surviving the Georgia Guidestone-esque recommended culling, should HAARP enhance this celestial event into ELE and validate the FEMA camp preparations, executive orders, etc. for dealing with the “left-behind.” I understand that the PTB have a thang for numerology, specific calendar dates (9/22, 9/11, 7/7, 3/11…), and celestial alignments & hyroscopes, so might aim for significant Mayan Calendar dates or planetary alignments to really mess with our minds and prove “there ain’t no coincidences.”]

        It inspires me to post less, lurk more (if at all), and do the “human experience” thang with more gusto while I can. After all, the PTB were able to run out the 9/11 clock to a decade already with no serious repercusions, investigations, or trials. The way I see it, the T&S database probably won’t change anything in the course of events, but might survive as a record that we weren’t all not paying attention.

        //

      4. [joke on]“Too cheap for a second pan, I like my campfire-style pan-fried 9/11 eggs sunny-side up and so gritty, they crunch.”[joke off]

        Ha! Been there.

        Trying to bring me into the two grumpy old men brawl on nukes v thermite, eh?
        I don’t know if you guys saw my comment? I thanked you both for the effort. Even the insults were sublime – [pokes wasp hive]you’ve both got more in common bar your disagreement over the issue![/pokes wasp hive]

        And no, the “dirt in the pan” reference was aimed at those who like to keep the roundabout in perpetual motion.

      5. Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

        Yes, I saw your thank you when it came floating by. Thank you.

        [pokes wasp hive] [Mr. Rogue and Sr. El Once] both got more in common bar your disagreement over the issue! [/pokes wasp hive]

        True dat!

        I know an objective review of Dr. Wood’s textbook won’t set Mr. Rogue into her camp. However, he’ll have enough of a foot grounded there to explore other variations, like what I do with my wild-ass speculation that stands on the shoulders of (disinfo) vehicles. Dang-nabbit nuggets of truth!

        Trying to bring me into the two grumpy old men brawl on nukes v thermite, eh?

        Nuclear-powered DEW (or nuking DEW ala Project Excalibur) versus super-duper nano-thermite, if you will.

        I’ve proven capable of publicly admitting when I’m wrong. Want to be able to do the same thing on this theme, as well.

        Gotta be the right proof, though, and scientifically sound.

        I’m convinced nano-thermite was involved, but not that it was the primary mechanism. [Required quantities is not believable.] The song-and-dance to lead us away from discussing radiation, required energy for pulverization, anomalous vehicle damage, under-rubble hot-spots, etc. doesn’t lead me away. Makes me want to camp out with my pan and mine more of those dang-nabbit nuggets of truth.

  39. See what I mean, Craig?

    This was an incredibly prompt, aggressive – and vapid – response from your resident “expert” Hybridrogue/aka Willy Whitten.

    Why does he use words such as “blatant bullshit”? Does he do this for a living?

    I will just have to keep hoping people make their own minds up about my research. It is really senseless to entertain such a serious debate with petulant, foul-mouthed people.

    1. Shack says:

      >”I will just have to keep hoping people make their own minds up about my research. It is really senseless to entertain such a serious debate with petulant, foul-mouthed people.”

      Lol, this is another cop out tactic you have used here time and again. No, the fact is you have no aptitude to debate, so you play this thin skinned excuse that, you get the vapors over the term “bullshit”.

      As both Onesliceshort and I have made some very specific points as to exactly why your “research” is nonsense [which is the same thing as bullshit in the Anglo-Saxon], there is plenty here to respond to if you had the ability to respond.

      You are as “undebunkable” as the Titanic was “unsinkable”…blub blub blub..

      ww

    2. Simon,

      As a videographer, I would have otherwise enjoyed engaging you in discussion here on this forum.

      However, like a dog that marks his territory, Hybridrogue/aka Willy Whitten is relentless in aggressively asserting his dominance here, self-justified by the higher purpose of the pursuit of truth. The unrivaled frequency, speed and nature of his posts make it quite plausible that indeed he could instead be motivated by some form of compensation for the disproportionately large amount of time and effort he devotes to this particular blog.

      Consequently, you are not alone in being intimidated by the sheer time and resources he has to assert his dominance here, and repelled by the petulance and foul-language he invariably generates and manages to inspire in a few others – ironically, in complete contrast with the writing style of blogger, Craig McKee; who like many people who have a dominant and aggressive dog, appears to be understandably undecided as to how best to correct this regrettable behavior. After all, Willy is certainly not stupid.

      In the meantime, I personally have resigned myself to censoring anything in my posts here that may trigger an aggressive response from him (with a few exceptions, this being one of them). I simply cannot afford to be engaged in endless rebuttals and purposeless wordsmanship battles.

      While there is only one Craig McKee, thankfully there exist plenty of other blogs and forums that operate relatively free of this type of subversive influence.

      Sherif Shaalan

      1. Despite the serious nature of your comment, I did get a couple of laughs from it. Notably the aggressive dog reference and you being thankful there’s only one of me. I know you didn’t mean it that way. Maybe that second comma needs to come out?

        I’m sorry that you feel constrained by the nature of the argument on this site. I am actively considering ways to make discussions more fruitful. I definitely want this to be a free and open forum for airing views even if some of those views aren’t popular with everyone. It can be a tricky balancing act, I’m finding.

        I’m a bit surprised to hear that there are many blogs without these problems.

      2. Oh, geez! Yes Craig, take that comma out. I wish I could have you edit my comments for me, before they get posted – especially when you’re pretty sure you know what I didn’t mean.

        I should have emphasized “relatively” without these problems. Thankfully, there aren’t that many resident-experts-in-everything-with-unlimited-time to go around.

        1. Ha! It’s okay, I need some levity from time to time. There’s not enough humor in this 9/11 stuff for my taste. And I do try to spot obvious errors before approving comments, but it’s a pretty cursory look. If I were editing a letters to the editor section of a newspaper (as I have) then I’d go over each letter very carefully. This is a bit of a different animal.

          By the way, did you notice that I caught when you wrote “intimated” instead of “intimidated”?

      3. Sherif Shaalan is “intimidated”? by words on a screen? By an “aggressive dog”?

        Lol…don’t blame me if you are afraid to post. If you have something you believe is true, and can defend with reason that it is true, how can ANYTHING intimidate you from expressing that truth?

        You speak to my “behavior” like a clucking hen…perhaps ‘behaviorism’ as in social conditioning has played too large a role in your abilities to respond. I have news for you if you haven’t noticed it, nothing can harm you here, they are nothing but words.

        Don’t forget the nursery rhyme:

        “Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me.”

        I think that it would be a grave mistake to impose rules that turned the commentary here into tepid pablum. That he is lobbied by thin skinned ‘kissies’ {what we called kids like that in Jr High} is surely got him thinking. Others here have other complaints and views on the way the blog is run, and some are outspoken about it.

        I think the blog is run just right and that is the reason it has become as popular as it has.

        Fixing something that is not broken usually entails breaking that something.

        Patching it back together will always show the seams…

        ww

        1. I thank for saying that about how the blog is run. I understand that it’s not possible to keep everyone happy.

          I’ll add that there is no chance of T & S becoming tepid pablum. If you take this current article as an indication, I’m not afraid to go straight at something or someone. And we all have to have that freedom in the comments section. But what I want to ensure is that the debate is free and open, but also not unnecessarily nasty or personal. If the focus is too much on personal clashes rather than on substance, it can have a harmful effect on the whole forum. I make that as a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular.

      4. I hope there is no need to impose any restrictions on “decorum” on T&S. I’m not taking any sides here as I disagree with a couple of Hybridrogue’s theories on thermite but as for his aggressive style I think it is almost necessary to have this approach when addressing some of the participants here. Indeed this excellent blog is not for the thin skinned … hard questions require hard answers.

        I am not skilled at the art of blogging and so prefer to remain an interested reader. T&S, for me is a most fascinating and informative insight into the minds of some serious thinkers on the subject of 9/11…and just for balance we have trolls lurking and a couple of others seemingly from fantasy land but the exchanges with them at the least add some humour. I’ve noticed on other blogs the insipid back-slapping, high fives and circling of kiddie wagons. T&S isn’t like that.

        Sherif wrote in another thread here that he has been a reader of this blog for many months but until recently has resisted the urge to comment. I am also an interested daily reader of this blog for about 8 months now after doing time with 911blogger. After discovering T&S I have been tempted many times to reply to a comment or ask questions, only to find that after sometimes just an hour or even minutes will pass and someone with the answer to my query will address the issue to at least my satisfaction via either a somewhat heated but very entertaining exchange or via links to where their information originated. Jumping in with a comment, unarmed on this blog (or any other serious debate for that matter) one must be prepared for what might come back at ya!.

        Yeah sure, Mr Hybridrogue1 can seem abrasive but he is only “calling it out”.

        I hope Sherif does continue to contribute here as he has raised some interesting topics and writes very well.

        So, let there be more great exchanges on this blog! The ongoing debate between Senor El Once with his colourful style and Hybrid’s no-holds barred counters is both informative and entertaining. Mr Hybrid can explain things in a detail that you can see in your mind’s eye. I am referring to the analysis of photo and video images re; black lines etc, and and analysis of the images of the aircraft “melting” into the WTC building. And not forgetting the wonderful piece on the mast tipping over. How many of us didn’t wiggle a pencil in front of their nose after reading that?

        Anyway I just wanted to give thumbs up to T&S as it is now and hope self-regulation of the rules of debate here will prevail.

        1. Alwhitesands,

          Thanks for providing me with a different angle on the whole decorum question. I agree that we can’t be thin-skinned as long as we don’t get overly nasty and personal. I wouldn’t want that driving people away.

          And I’m glad that you chose to make a comment after several months. It’s clear that you have a lot to offer this forum, so I’d be glad to see your opinions as often as you’d like to offer them. And I agree with you about Sherif. He provides just the kind of rational and thoughtful take on the issues that the forum needs.

          So thanks for the thumbs up, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

      5. Dear alwhitesands,

        I truly appreciate your comment here. And I don’t mind at all with your disagreement with my arguments as per nanothermites. I think the points you make about the rough and tumble nature of getting down to hard core debate is valuable.

        My main point in keeping the thermite debate alive is that it is yet still one of the only physical evidences that prove government complicity. As Jones remarked, there would be no other reason for the towers to have had these substances in them other than to blow them up.

        Of course I am yet to be persuaded to any alternative, as you surely have noted.

        Thanks, Willy

        PS, You obviously read closely and pay attention. The remark about the pencil is appreciated.

      6. Dear Sherif Shaalan,

        For your consideration, some thoughts on crossover idioms, our perceptions of one another, and hope for more understanding.

        DICTIONARY AND THESAURUS REFERENCES:

        PETULANT. 1: insolent or rude in speech or behavior . 2: characterized by temporary or capricious ill humor : peevish — [pet·u·lant·ly adverb]
        adjective moved to or showing sudden, impatient irritation, especially over some trifling annoyance: a petulant toss of the head. pet·u·lant [ péchələnt ] sulky: ill-tempered or sulky in a peevish manner.
        Synonyms: sulky, crabby, peevish, grumpy, sullen, moody, cantankerous, huffy, snappish, irritable, grouchy, ill-tempered, touchy, testy, querulous, snappy, bad-tempered.

        Crossover Idiom:

        THIN-SKINNED: unduly susceptible to criticism or insult : touchy…sensitive to criticism, reproach, or rebuff; easily offended; touchy, easily upset or hurt; sensitive.
        ……….
        REACHING OUT:
        Seeking rapprochement, finding common ground, coming to an understanding…etc.

        Notice, if you will; the term “touchy”, as it appears in the definitions of both “petulant” And “thin-skinned”.

        You’re a smart guy Sherif, you should understand what I am getting at. I have no particular animosity towards you. Nor have I actually treated you badly.

        You shouldn’t be “intimidated” by my treatment of Shack; Consider the sentence above in defining petulance; “impatient irritation, especially over some trifling annoyance.”

        Understand this, I do not consider Simon Shack, “a trifling annoyance,” I consider him a dangerous Perception Manipulator, PR hack, toady, and shill. I see this as a serious matter. I am not emotionally distressed over this, I am concerned for justified reasons that I have articulated as clearly as I can.

        I have gone to the trouble of constructing this post to reach out to you for understanding, because you have pretty much vanished from posting. I think this is unfortunate. I think you have value to add to these discussions.

        By the same token, I don’t think anyone deserves ‘kid-gloves’ in dealing with issues of such import as those we speak to here.

        You have your own choices to make, do not make a scapegoat out of me or anyone else. Stand and deliver with courage__or not. It is up to you.

        Most sincerely yours, Willy

  40. dennis says:
    “at the bottom of your pages you have a picture of the south tower tipping……do you know the source of that photo?”

    Dennis, in case you missed Simon Shacks post from yesterday, there are at least 8 possible “original sources for the photo in question- as research has shown there to be at least 8 slightly different versions of it.

    A brief time-line summary history of them all was provided by Mr Shack , here it is again : http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2364903#p2364903

    So your question ultimately depends on whether or not Mr McKee remembers from where he presumably web-accessed the “photo”in question, and whether or not the particular version was attributed to anyone in particular at the time and place he accessed it.

    P.S. did you see my follow up questions [07/17] for you regarding court procedures for imagery verification yet?

    Regards, onebornfree.

  41. onebornefree says:

    Dennis, in case you missed Simon Shacks post from yesterday, there are at least 8 possible “original sources for the photo in question- as research has shown there to be at least 8 slightly different versions of it.

    What utterly unbelievable bullshit Onebornfree, there are eight distinctly different photos of the tipping tower in Shack’s montage, the one by Amy Sancetta is clearly distinguishable from the others.

    These photos were taken with different cameras and different lenses, and different film types, from different positions, some at least a block, probably more away from another.

    I don’t see how anyone can take a word you say seriously. This whole Shack thing is leagues beyond stupid at this point.

    ww

  42. obf,
    thanks for the info and heads up. there are a number of areas re 9/11 that i have not yet gotten into and shack’s material is part of that. as authenticity of the visual evidence has become a focus of mine, i will have to look into shack’s material in due course.

    yes, during a trial, “the judge, and only the judge…gets to decide what is/is not authentic” and thereby admissible into evidence, over any objections. and yes, it is the judge who rules on all attorney objections. generally speaking, his decisions are subject to review on appeal.

    if “new information comes to light and they discover, via a previously unknown witness [or whatever] that the video previously judged as authentic is actually a fraud.” that should be grounds for a reversal of the decision, or at least an instruction to the jury (if there is one) that that evidence is to be ignored. not sure here.

  43. Dear Craig,

    Since we are on the subject of the 9/11 collapse imagery (and “9/11 Media cover-up”), I’d like to share with you an old ‘anecdote’ concerning my research on this subject. I am sure you are aware that, for years on end, we were told that the towers had collapsed at free-fall speed. As a matter of fact, the official NIST report has WTC1 collapsing in “11 seconds”. Likewise, Richard Gage’s “A&Efor911truth” organization had on their website, back in 2009, a long ‘scientific’ article analyzing in meticulous detail (and frame by frame) one of those subsequently released “amateur” videos which indeed depicted WTC1 collapsing in 11 seconds. Let me repeat – for due emphasis : “11 SECONDS”.

    Now, please know that CNN was the only network which aired the full WTC1 collapse on LIVE TV, at 10:28AM. Their WTC1 collapse video sequence (which was preceded by an astonishingly ‘prescient’ long-distance zoom-in on the WTC1 by a supposed TV chopper cameraman) shows WTC1 collapsing in WELL OVER 11 seconds – in fact, it lasts for at least 18 seconds!

    The LIVE (approx 18-seconds) CNN collapse – as documented on my website:
    http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm

    The WTC1 collapse sequence – link to the official CNN archives (starts at 16:55):
    http://archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053

    So, back in 2009, I decided to contact Richard Gage – pointing out this ‘curious’ fact – and questioning the article he had up on his website (dissecting the images of an 11-second WTC1 collapse) which, of course, his thousands of expert architects and engineers must have been using for years as their ‘gold standard’ to compute their calculations. Within days, I received a reply from the A&E’s website webmaster, which very succintly went like this:

    “Thanks for your message. We have now removed the relevant article from our website.”

    (I now kick myself for not having safely saved /made a screenshot of that reply – I promise to post it here if I can find it in some old hard disk of mine). Of course, I went back to the A&E website to verify, and indeed, that extremely detailed article – surely a fundamental pillar to the “11-second, free-fall collapse” paradigm – had simply been deleted ! (Note: I have never heard from Richard Gage himself in all these years – but for this short reply from his webmaster).

    Now, I ask you, Craig: what does this tell you about the seriousness and credibility of the A&E “truther” organization? Does the fact that CNN aired (on LIVE TV) a considerably slower collapse than NIST’s (and A&E’s) “11 seconds” figure NOT merit any sort of scrutiny? What’s going on here? Why did it take 8 long years for A&E to look up the LIVE CNN imagery – which depicts a WTC1 collapse lasting nowhere near “11 seconds”?

    I expect that your resident “experts”/ naysayers will come up with some ridiculous excuse / or fanciful theory for this absurd – yet fully verifiable – discrepancy, such as: “CNN might have slowed down the live feed in real time – so as to make for a more dramatic and long-lasting spectacle! TV networks do that all the time! Simon Shack is an ignorant charlatan who knows nothing about news broadcasting! ”

    Oh well… let’s wait and see… ;O)

    1. I tried to watch the CNN footage, but my laptop kept freezing, so I couldn’t time the collapse.

      On that page on SC you show a pic that appears to show smoke coming from the edge of Building 7. What about the numerous images of smoke billowing out from the side of the building, seemingly from top to bottom? And what about the pic linked to below?

      http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread182546/pg3

      To Willy, I’m sure this has been asked and answered over the years, but maybe you could tell me why so much of the video coverage looks hazy, dark, and totally unlike the clear, sunny day that it was.

      1. Craig asks,

        “To Willy, I’m sure this has been asked and answered over the years, but maybe you could tell me why so much of the video coverage looks hazy, dark, and totally unlike the clear, sunny day that it was.”

        Let’s not forget that there were cool fires in the WTC towers, which means ‘sooty black smoke’ filling the air around that tip of Manhattan.

        There is also the fact that so many of the pics and videos are so many generations away from the original, which adds such features to an image, often because of mismatched compression schemes when a poster uses a copied image file, and it is automatically subject to his systems schemata.

        The worst are the GIF images, mostly what Shack deals with. These are notorious for darkening and muddying imagery, as well as cutting frame count down when translating video.

        To address Shack’s assertion of the 11 second timing, and the 18 second timing.
        I would not trust Shack to know if he had a video that wasn’t running at a different speed than the original video, and would have to have some certification of what video he used, and what others may be on hand to compare it too.

        I also cannot comment as to why NIST and everyone else speaking to the collapses seems to have settled on the eleven second collapse time.

        I do recall that Prof Jones did a video analysis, that if I remember correctly came out to more like 13 seconds. Much of the discrepancy seems to arise from the fact that in most videos one cannot see the base of the towers, and has to estimate from what ever is seen from the particular POV of the camera.

        As far as his commentary on Gage and Architects, I understand he can provide no documentation of this exchange. If he can, let him do so, rather than relying on hearsay.

        ww

        1. Willy,

          I’m sure all of those things can be factors in image quality, but I’m having a hard time believing that they could account for what we saw. I understand poor quality or degraded images, but these look totally different that what you’d expect on a clear day, smoke or not.

      2. Craig

        On that page on SC you show a pic that appears to show smoke coming from the edge of Building 7. What about the numerous images of smoke billowing out from the side of the building, seemingly from top to bottom? And what about the pic linked to below?

        http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread182546/pg3

        That image is an example of the type of manipulation used by NIST to exaggerate their claims on WTC7.

        The majority of that smoke is emanating from WTC6

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22085&st=0&p=10805413&#entry10805413

        NIST deception (well worth the read)

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22085&st=0&p=10805415&#entry10805415

        Source of the smoke:

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22095

        Look closely..

      3. One should understand that these video images were being shot with analog/tape video cameras in 2001 – it is in the feed to the TV studio that these videos are translated to the protocol of the broadcast medium. The feeds from the cameras to studio can have all sorts of technical anomalies depending on the camera type fed into the feed. So the original broadcast visuals can vary in quality themselves.

        Then add to this, taking the broadcast video, and putting it into a GIF file, is going to muddy and degrade what may already be less than pristine footage.

        I will guarantee you one certainty, what you see on Shacks presentation is NOTHING like what you would have seen live from that POV.

        ww

      4. Dear Craig,

        In order to time the collapse on the CNN TV archives, all you need to do is to look at the video time counter. You will see that the WTC1 collapse stars at 16:55 – and 18 seconds later (at 17:13) it appears to be still not quite terminated – so my 18seconds estimate is in fact quite conservative. Let me post this link to the TV archives once again, as it seems that Willy is having trouble comprehending what we are talking about::

        The WTC1 collapse sequence – link to the official CNN archives (starts at 16:55):
        http://archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053

        I can only hope Willy won’t say that the official TV archives are unreliable (or so badly compressed that they somehow ‘expand’ the events’ timelines -lol!) and therefore cannot be trusted. In any case, please know that the archive material I used for September Clues were mostly high-res MPEG2 files which I was lucky enough to download back in 2006 – before the official 9/11 TV archives (linked above) inexplicably removed their MPEG2 files (which until then were available for public download) and left us only with the currently viewable, inferior “.flv” material.

        As for my animated Gifs, (which certainly cause quality loss) they never try to demonstrate issues related to the (horrid) original video resolution of the LIVE 9/11 imagery – but only serve the purpose to loop short segments of interest. So please, Willy, stop complaining about the animated Gifs’ resolution. Instead, send your complaints to the media networks who showed us this atrocious imagery!

        Craig, you make an excellent point: “Why does so much of the (9/11) video coverage looks hazy, dark, and totally unlike the clear, sunny day that it was?”

        This would be the very first question to submit – in (an ideal) court of law – to all the TV networks. Don’t they have top notch, awfully expensive camera equipment? Don’t their technicians have any clue about white balance settings? And how can we now have scores of alleged “amateur” videos (which emerged in 2010 due to an alleged FOIA act filed by ABC against NIST) featuring perfectly blue skies – unlike the green, purple, yellow, white, orange skies featured in the LIVE TV archives???

        Moreover :

        Why can we see thick black outlines around the WTC buildings?

        …both in the LIVE TV imagery:

        …AS WELL AS in the newly released (2010) NIST imagery?
        http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2369781#p2369781

        Why does the smoke billowing from the towers switch from black to white?

        Why do we have backdrop aberrations of the Manhattan skyline – such as the abnormally large and ‘mobile’ Verrazano bridge?
        http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2363796#p2363796

        Why do the LIVE TV “chopper shots” feature impossible camera optics ?
        http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2364895#p2364895

        And on and on… I just don’t want to clog your blog with links!

        As for your WTC7 questions, Craig, I am currently putting together a dedicated post on Cluesforum, which should be ready by tomorrow. I just realized that I have still not comprehensively illustrated on my forum all of the WTC7-related imagery observations which I have gathered throughout the years. So thanks a lot for inspiring me to do so!

        Very best regards

        Simon

      5. Craig

        So the smoke is in effect hitting Building 7 and deflecting off it, giving the impression it’s coming from 7?

        From what I can tell having looked at the smoke all day, the majority of smoke came from the WTC comlex, particularly WTC 5 and 6. The smoke seen to the southwest corner in those images I posted produced no flames or fire damage to the facade in either direction.

        it appears to be coming from the lobby/promenade where there are no combustibles. My hunch based on visual evidence is that diesel tanks were ruptured on the fifth floor of that corner and that the fuel smouldered in a combustible-free zone for most of the day.

        Why’s it important? Subtract the smoke seen in that area and imagine the media and NIST claiming that fire brought that building down (to Joe Public)

        One hard sell. Unless it was meant to go down with the towers.

        PS talking to other posters at Pilots, I believe that the second stage of the “dirty deed” was done on Floor 5 by kicking the legs out from underneath. And that the damaged area messed up the demo.

        4cents

      6. Craig

        I’m just realizing what the debate is about the smoke….durr…

        Yeah, the smoke looks like it’s rolling along the facade of Building 7 in multiple images.

      7. As for your WTC7 questions, Craig, I am currently putting together a dedicated post on Cluesforum, which should be ready by tomorrow. I just realized that I have still not comprehensively illustrated on my forum all of the WTC7-related imagery observations which I have gathered throughout the years. So thanks a lot for inspiring me to do so!

        Very best regards

        Simon

        I see Simon is going to do more “work” on WTC7 without addressing the flaws outlined in the video posted here already. Hardly “comprehensive”?

      8. See my comments on:

        July 15, 2012 at 4:57 pm:

        On CAD creation of ‘virtual spaces’ ie; ‘virtual worlds’.

        July 18, 2012 at 5:20 pm:

        In the state of the art of videography and TV broadcasting circa 2001.

        ww

    2. From: http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm

      “WTC2 COLLAPSE” LIVE ON NBC

      This is a clip from the NBC archives. It should be immediately clear to any casual observer that this visual representation of Manhattan is not real. It has all the characteristics of a digitally rendered computer animation.”

      YES….

      It is indeed “immediately clear” because every one of these images and animations is a GIF file – NOT VIDEO.

      This is the very point I have been making in every thread where this bunk from Shack is discussed.

      A GIF is an animation extrapolated from real video.

      For use in analyzing video it is totally inappropriate, and technically incompetent.

      ww

    3. Onesliceshort comments:

      “I see Simon is going to do more “work” on WTC7 without addressing the flaws outlined in the video posted here already. Hardly “comprehensive”?”

      Yes OSS, you will note that all of the commentary surrounding the URLs Shack is offering up, one I note in particular “the black lines” around the buildings, has been address time after time by both of us.

      As to the poor video quality of some of the originally aired footage is also addressed here, as per the fact that the video cameras of the 2001 era were analog – as per the feed to the studio dealing with all the differing models of cameras out in the field.

      As per the feed having technical problems because the stuff from Manhattan had to go through the antennas that were effected by the events around them. The feed from the antenna mast on the North Tower would have to have been rerouted very quickly to catch the destruction of the building, and could be a reason for the quick ‘CUT’ at the moment the tower began to twist at the top.

      But we see OSS, that none of this will have the slightest effect on Mr Shack and his magic video circus. Too frickin’ quaint.

      Ludicrous – ‘game like’ – from the Latin root, Ludi meaning game…like Magister Ludi, the game master of the ‘Glass Bead Game’ by Herman Hess.

      September Clues is LUDICROUS.

      WW

  44. Dennis said: “yes, during a trial, “the judge, and only the judge…gets to decide what is/is not authentic” and thereby admissible into evidence, over any objections. and yes, it is the judge who rules on all attorney objections. generally speaking, his decisions are subject to review on appeal.”…..”if “new information comes to light and they discover, via a previously unknown witness [or whatever] that the video previously judged as authentic is actually a fraud.” that should be grounds for a reversal of the decision, or at least an instruction to the jury (if there is one) that that evidence is to be ignored. not sure here.”

    Ok, and thank you. Which means that ultimately the judge gets to decide, before a case even gets started in front of the jury, what is and is not “evidence”, in your opinion.

    Which means, if true, that it appears to me that the only way for the defense to go , once fake evidence [i.e. deemed fake by the defense] is “authenticated” by a federal judge and then presented to the jury, would be to somehow attack the credibility of the alleged camera-person[s], or to maybe attack chain of custody issues [as was done in the OJ Simpson case, for example], to try to undermine the entire gamut of 9/11 imagery.

    Just a guess, I’m not a lawyer and have no legal training.

    Regards, onebornfree

  45. FAKE SMOKE [ Jumble-Lie-Ah ]

    “Another horrendous cock-up by the “9/11 animation crew”: White smoke is seen covering the West side of WTC7. It is inexplicably ‘cut’ along the edge of WTC7. Could it be a reflection? No: The sun being where it is, any ‘reflection’ would have been that of a shadow.”~ Shack

    http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm

    Herein Shack explains to us that he has no idea at all as to how CGI works. All surfaces, all lighting, and all animations therein are done in a 3D space that is set as protocol – NONE of this is hand done, none of it is left entirely in a single technician’s hands. These sorts of “mistakes” are impossible in the virtual world already produced in CAD prior to any animations. [See: My earlier exposition on the real techniques used to create a virtual CGI ‘set’ or ‘simulated world’.]

    What we are seeing in these blurry GIF animations is obvious. It is a reflection seen of smoke in the windows of the building directly under the yellow arrow, which has another building behind it. There is also a lower layer of smoke drifting near the bottom of this building. Shack is simply wrong in the estimation of what the luminosity of the smoke should have in the shot he addresses.

    His major failure however is in being technically clueless as to how CGI is created.

    ww

  46. Craig McKee says: “I’m sure all of those things can be factors in image quality, but I’m having a hard time believing that they could account for what we saw. I understand poor quality or degraded images, but these look totally different that what you’d expect on a clear day, smoke or not.”

    Indeed, Craig. Even though it is only a GIF file, just sit back and take a look at the overall dirty brown coloration of the NBC collapse sequence at the top of the page :http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm , if you had not done so already.

    Besides which, as I understand it, there are numerous scenery errors within even that short sequence, as I’m sure Mr Shack would be happy to elaborate on.

    Regards, onebornfree

    P.S. regarding overall exceedingly poor picture quality of alleged 9/11 shots, you might try something I discovered by accident. I wanted pictures showing the damage done to aircraft by birds in flight and so I entered the words “plane” and “strike” into a google picture search [I should have entered something like “plane” birds” and “strike”, but anyway..] – what immediately struck me about the search results was the overall low resolution and bad coloration of any shot attributed to 9/11 that turned up on any page. The 9/11 related shots were immediately identifiable just from the poor thumbnail picture quality and overall coloration alone.

    I imagine that if you tried a google search with the words ” tall”, “building” , or “skyscraper” and “collapse” or similar you will get a good demonstration of how the 9/11 imagery is all of very low quality and highly questionable coloration when seen side by side with the 100’s of thousands of authentic non 9/11 photographs available on line.

    1. Onebornfree says:

      “Besides which, as I understand it, there are numerous scenery errors within even that short sequence, as I’m sure Mr Shack would be happy to elaborate on.”

      Yes, I am sure Mr Shack would be happy to elaborate on the “numerous scenery errors”, because he is utterly unaware that such “scenery errors” are simply impossible in a CGI production – as I have elaborated on here extensively.

      Everything is a CGi set is stable as a representation of a CAD created ‘virtual world”…nothing is going to ‘drift’ out of place by some technical error of ‘animation’, because all the animation is controlling the elements meant to be controlled.
      Nothing in the ‘set’ is going to be out of place from one angle to another.

      That you don’t get this, is a reflection of Shack himself not getting it. You fail to realize that if these were actually CGI, the color would be perfect like scenes out of cinema…anything that isn’t perfect would have to be purposefully added in, it would not be in error.

      These are not difficult concepts to grasp, one has to be particularly obstinate to miss how silly these comments from Onebornfree and Shack are. All I can do is shake my head…

      ww

      1. with all of the debate over the crucial issue of authenticity re the 9/11 flims, videos, files, pics, etc. (collectively “clips,” herein), i feel like i am back in college and have walked into an advanced physics class 3/4 into the semester, after having cut classes to smoke dope with lola since day 1, while entertaining the hallucinatory hope of catching up in the last few weeks. if there is a summer school session available, i’d like to know where it is to be held, so i can try to register and start at the beginning. if this debate is to continue here, i’d like to see a focus on just one of the key clips at issue (e.g., the bldg 7 clip shown to jowneko), and hear who has to say what about that particular clip. if that info is out there already, a url would be appreciated.

      2. Well Dennis,

        This started with a long post by Simon Shack back on the 36 Truthers thread, a long story he posited playing the “Mastermind” behind the 9/11Plot.
        A very imaginative ‘spy thriller’ sort of scenario, inwhich he developed the theory of doing the whole thing in digital special effects.
        As a treatment for a film, it was pretty good, and I complemented him on that.

        There were so many technical problems with the idea, beyond the actual fake video movie he had in mind, many ‘on the ground’ problems that were simply show-stopper, as far as simple physical reality, the fact of real human beings being involved in the events actually happening, and a lot of logistical problems that there were no practical routes around.

        At first I didn’t want to confront him with these issues. But Senor was fascinated and prodded Shack into being more elaborate and ending up producing a pretty full presentation, right in the comments section.

        It was then that my general concerns focused on the actual claims of video fakery. And to me it was totally obvious the guy didn’t have a clue as to what he is talking about. Being a veteran effects artist, I didn’t realize that others wouldn’t see through it as readily as I did. I saw that I had to go back to basics and show what was so obvious to me to those who couldn’t see it.

        I’ll admit it was frustrating at times when something was just screaming bells whistles and sirens that Shack’s whole ritual is based in showing clips with leading dialog…he is using simple ‘suggestion’ techniques [not unlike in hypnotic suggestions] even though it is written in the leading suggestion sort of way, it may not be obvious, as he is introducing you to something “new” that “you may not have noticed before”, and one is shown these dancing GIFs, with Shack ‘explaining’ what you should see in them.

        Are otherwise intelligent people capable of falling for this? The answer is obvious in that there are several here that, are ‘considering’ that there may be something to it. I find most commentators here to be above average in their overall intelligence.

        So it was this challenge that grew out of the original thread, as it keeps being promoted on every single thread by Onebornfree. I feel essential to reveal what I see as dangerous falsehood, just a duty taken on for myself, as much as a gadfly reputation seems to follow it. Therefore I generally try to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt to the issues I deal with.

        If you really want to start at the beginning, the thread I mention is the place to go…but it is a big thread, and a lot of other issues are debated as well…the Wood thing there began as I recall…the physics of the towers destruction…a lot of stuff.

        As far as WTC7 OSS has already put up a very detailed analysis and critique of the Shack exposition on WTC7 – try reading through that again too.

        ww

      3. Dennis,

        One more comment,

        If you don’t have Photoshop, Illustrator, or Adobe Bridge; get some books or visit websites on these programs and their tools and capabilities – remembering that the modern versions are far more advanced than the 2001 era versions – particularly in the video and motion capabilities.

        Also, I would read up on CAD, books or web.

        Good Luck, Willy

  47. Onebornfree said: “Besides which, as I understand it, there are numerous scenery errors within even that short sequence, as I’m sure Mr Shack would be happy to elaborate on. ”

    Oops. Craig, I see he has already raised the fake scenery backdrop issue [amongst others]in a post I did not see till now: Simon Shack said: “Why do we have backdrop aberrations of the Manhattan skyline – such as the abnormally large and ‘mobile’ Verrazano bridge?”
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2363796#p2363796

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. “It should be immediately clear to any casual observer that this visual representation of Manhattan is not real….In case you should wonder, the slight ‘bobbing’ of the picture is supposed to imprint the idea of this being filmed from a helicopter.”~Shack

      http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm

      ……

      In a gyro steady-cam, the lense will remain level from it’s point of view, however, if the whole helicopter dropped from an airpocket the POV would drop as well, The cam may be mostly immune to jiggle, but its mounted or held POV will have to change if that position itself suddenly changes.

      A steady-cam isn’t like a missile guidance system that can lock on to a target – and if it were, the angle of the shot would change as the center of focus would be the lock on target. Such a guidance system would entail radar or laser bounce back, something the military may have, but not a News Copter. And if one wants to posit a special ops tractor-beam camera, WHY? If the footage is CGI, none of what is supposedly being filmed is real.

      ww

      1. Hybridrogue wrote:
        “A steady-cam isn’t like a missile guidance system that can lock on to a target – and if it were, the angle of the shot would change as the center of focus would be the lock on target. Such a guidance system would entail radar or laser bounce back, something the military may have, but not a News Copter. And if one wants to posit a special ops tractor-beam camera, WHY? If the footage is CGI, none of what is supposedly being filmed is real.”

        Sincere compliments, Willy – that entire paragraph actually makes perfect sense! So, since we can both agree that News Copters don’t have missile guidance systems that can lock on to a target, would you have a sensible explanation as to how this shot was made?

        “The Postcard backdrop” :

        While you are at it, you could also try your hand at this longstanding (& still unchallenged) challenge of mine – and win a trip to planet Mars! How about that? :O)

      2. Having no desire to take a trip to Mars, I will decline that offer. If you want my input on any imagery provide the actual footage, not GIF animations.
        Real video, or quality jpgs.

        ww

  48. dennis says: ” if this debate is to continue here, i’d like to see a focus on just one of the key clips at issue (e.g., the bldg 7 clip shown to jowneko), and hear who has to say what about that particular clip. if that info is out there already, a url would be appreciated.”

    I watched an interview with the now deceased Mr Jowneko a few minutes ago on line, and from what I could tell he got to see at least 2 different clips of WTC7’s collapse sequence.

    One of them appears to be included in the analysis that Mr Shack has done here [starting at 3.33 in the video] : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg , but I’m not absolutely certain of that, because it was not absolutely clear from the interview with Mr Jowneko. The other [2nd clip] he saw could be any of a number of variants, so I’m even less sure about exactly which one he might have seen. [Regardless, they are all fakes, in my opinion ]. Mr Shack would probably have an easier time of deciding which clips were involved in the Jowneko interview.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. thanks obf. i will check out the link. i did not know that mr jowenko has passed, very sorry to hear.

      re: “Mr Shack would probably have an easier time of deciding which clips were involved in the Jowneko interview.” i did not realize that there are no clips of jowenko definitively viewing exactly what it was he was viewing and commenting on–i’ll have to revisit the jowenko interviews . if we are not able to see what it is that jowenko was viewing, that would strike me as very odd (poor journalism, at best).

      do you (and/or mr shack) have a theory about who allegedly created the “fake” videos, and what their motivation might have been?

      1. the clip at the (heavily infiltrated) 9/11 blogger site (which still has some good stuff, that’s the nature of cognitive infiltraiton, isn’t it?) here http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-21/wtc7-expert-witness-danny-jowenko-dies-car-crash
        clearly shows jowenko and the very familiar bldg 7 clip he was watching at the 0:25 and 1:39 marks.

        the story notes that jowenko died in a car crash in the netherlands, just about one year ago. william pepper has stated that in europe, car crashes are the favorite m.o. of professional assassins.

    2. Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

      I watched the video of WTC-7 from Mr. Shack that you posted. I give Mr. Shack kudos for his cleverness, and Mr. Rogue kudos for providing the understanding and hints that lead to discovering the errors in Mr. Shack’s perception management tour.

      At 4:00, Mr. Shack draws some dashed lines for the corners and says: East side of WTC7 ‘expands’ Eastwards. Shortly thereafter (5:10) he provides a clip from a different angle that shows the The East corner falls distinctly Westwards.

      It is all a matter of perspective. The corner in question is falling neither eastward or westward. It is falling northwards. The camera of shot 1 was west of the corner, while camera of shot 2 was east of the corner.

      To explain, try this experiment. Place a piece of paper on your desk such that its edges align with your desk. Move your chair to the right. Take a pen and stand it perpendicular on the lower right corner of the paper. Have the pen fall over such that it falls off the front edge of the desk and parallel to the left edge. Due to your chair’s orientation, you will perceive the pen as falling to the left despite the fact that it is falling forward with respect to the desk & paper.

      Now move your chair to the left. Do the same operation with the pen. Due to the chair’s new orientation, you will perceive the pen as falling to the right despite the fact that it is falling forward with respect to the desk & paper.

      It is an optical illusion that Mr. Shack is using to try to caste the video evidence as all fake. His analysis is wrong.

      I’m a little bit keen on this, because the same element of differing perspectives had me (because of Mr. Shack’s productions) believing that the various footage of the 2nd plane had completely different flight paths. Once 3D modeling of the city was done and a flight path from one video was plotted, the 3D model proved that the perspectives of the other videos represented the same flight path.

      This being said, IMAGERY MANIPULATION DID HAPPEN WITH REGARDS TO 9/11. The catch is “to what extent?” I believe it did not happen to the extent that Mr. Shack and you push it. On the other hand, we cannot assume that all was genuine, either. Case by case. Mr. Shack fails to prove to me WTC-7 footage was faked.

      P.S. A nugget of truth from September Clues (and others) that proves to me that imagery manipulation happened was the four different versions of the helicopter shot: one with nothing, one with a reflective orb, one that masked out the background and showed the pixel plane coming from a different direction, and one with the orb replaced by a hazy plane. Somebody was playing around with it.

      1. Señor El Once // says:

        P.S. A nugget of truth from September Clues (and others) that proves to me that imagery manipulation happened was the four different versions of the helicopter shot: one with nothing, one with a reflective orb, one that masked out the background and showed the pixel plane coming from a different direction, and one with the orb replaced by a hazy plane. Somebody was playing around with it.

        I’ve seen the “orb video” quite a few times. It is my opinion that someone took that video with the plane in it and masked out the plane, replacing it with what is the simplest object to model – a sphere. This could be achieved with very simple software…especially if the end product is a GIF animation. Who ever was “playing around with it”, did it with the footage of the real plane that the helicopter shot.

        The fact that they afforded a shot with nothing at all is proof that they began with a masking layer. If they were really talented they could have dropped in an image of Dumbo with his ears flapping.

        ww

    1. OBF

      Read the post in full.

      Anyway, parting shot before I hit the sack

      All of the following footage is “fake”

      Claims that the aircraft angle of impact is “different” in some shots

      The claim that the towers “didn’t budge”

      “Fade to black” argument – even household appliances were affected:

      “No strobe light” argument:

      “No debris falling from impact side” argument:

      “Nose out” argument

      G’night

      1. Well OSS,

        That sums it up nicely. Great presentation – tight, precise – to the point.

        Thanks, Willy

      2. oss,
        thanks for all these. i’ve only begun to view them but will get into it soon. i did notice that the clips often carry an identifying tag, e.g., abc news, ny times, carmen taylor, rob howard, luke cremin. i take these tags to be identifiers of the person (or organization) who filmed what we are seeing, correct? if yes, that is the kind of approach i would like to see employed whenever a “presenter” is using a clip to make a point. the failure to do so lessens (and may even negate) the integrity of the clip and/or the credibility of the presenter, in my view. if the clip is from an unknown source, then “unknown source” can be the tag.

      3. Dennis,

        100% agree.

        That’s why I avoided anonymous or government based sources for witness testimonies and freelance/amateur images and videos. And whether one accepts a media-related “freelance” source or not is entirely up to each person. The main point is that there’s a name connected to the footage.

      4. OSS,

        Can you post just the URLs of these videos – not as embeds?

        I have tried to right click and copy the URL, and nothing happens {???} when I paste, it is always what was formerly copied into my mouse.

        I want to save this set of video URLs to file.

        Thanx, ww

    2. As it seems Mr Shack can’t come up with the real video, I will say this much about the splatter of mud GIF animation he offered up:

      Shack is under the false assumption that the foreground should be out of focus in this shot.

      Depth of field ( the depth of focus a camera can maintain through the front of the shot to infinity, and the position of that focus within the shot ) with bright sunlight & a very sensitive camera like this would be near if not at “infinity” – ie, everything in the shot in pretty good if not exact focus.

      Presumably the operator has set the building as a target for the camera, so as the copter moves around, the burning tower stays pinned, the cameras gyros keep it focused on the burning building while the copter moves around what is essentially a stationery camera in mid air.

      The foreground is just the underpinnings of the copter – the white part at the right holds one of the L/R “feet”; my guess on the black thing is that it might be a “step” to help somebody climb in? probably easy enough to check out by searching some copter images

      In any case, that rig has to be on the opposite side of the copter from the camera turret, and so is a good ways away from the camera – perhaps 8ft.

      ww

  49. Find The Error:

    “Then, we end up with ca. 250,000 tons of pulverizable material per tower (WTC1 or WTC2).”~Harrit

    “It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to
    understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance
    are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and
    that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC
    rubble.
    As we examined the WTC-debris sample*, we found large
    chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was
    approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces
    of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the
    pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false
    premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder”~Jones

    Actually “pulverized” verses “pulverizable” – is the crux of the matter.

    ww

  50. I don’t think we should forget the very real probability that “live” footage that morning wasn’t so “live”. Remember that we were (allegedly) watching a false flag event as it happened

    Look at the quality of footage at the Pentagon. The first images broadcast were from every angle bar the “impact” side, from 5 minutes after the explosion. And they were pretty good resolution shots. But. There were no shots of the “lawn” side for eleven minutes after the explosion. And when they were eventually shown, they were grainy and undecipherable.

    Whatever “amateur” or “freelance” footage available was sanitized, edited, jumbled (timeframes)  and withheld for years. And there’s still loads more being withheld.

    Look at the difference in resolution between two cameras, one Fox and the other CNN. The two shots appear to be from the same roofline and were taken within minutes of each other.

    …and on the right

    1. I agree with you OSS,

      These are the types of perception manipulations I would expect from the MSM:
      Stalling, controlling access, controlling angles with Yellow Tape, controlling the quality of certain shots as per blurry indistinct pics etc.

      ww

  51. @Craig McKee: Craig, again regarding the WTC tower collapse still photo image at the bottom left of your page, that I had raised questions about a thread or two ago, and about which Dennis has more recently asked you about, did you happen to notice the almost perfect triangle of smoke that sits atop the tilted top part of the WTC building depicted? Triangular smoke shapes? Hmmm.

    Regards, onebornfre

  52. dennis said: ” i did not know that mr jowenko has passed, very sorry to hear. i did not realize that there are no clips of jowenko definitively viewing exactly what it was he was viewing and commenting on–i’ll have to revisit the jowenko interviews . if we are not able to see what it is that jowenko was viewing, that would strike me as very odd (poor journalism, at best). do you (and/or mr shack) have a theory about who allegedly created the “fake” videos, and what their motivation might have been?”

    Dennis here is a 3 part presentation that is apparently of the entire, original Jowneko interview. I believe I saw the 1st part only [at a different website] so it may become clearer in parts 2 or 3 which actual alleged “live” footage of WTC7’s collapse he saw : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

    Mr Jowneko [ a Dutch demolition expert?] apparently died under very strange circumstances after making his opinion publicly known regarding what he saw in those clips: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/23/dutch-demolition-expert-danny-jowenko-dies-in-car-crash/

    As to my theory as to who created the videos he saw and why, I first have 2 questions for you :

    [1] do you mean who created what would have been the original , US broadcast alleged “live” broadcasts of the WTC7 collapse he may or may not have seen, or the later released [i.e. never aired “live” in the US] versions he may or may not have seen? , and ….

    [2] are you sure you want to know my theory? [and I cannot speak for Mr Shack], after all you admitted that you : “feel like i am back in college and have walked into an advanced physics class 3/4 into the semester, after having cut classes to smoke dope with lola since day 1, while entertaining the hallucinatory hope of catching up in the last few weeks. ” 🙂

    Regards onebornfree.

    1. Dennis here is a 3 part presentation that is apparently of the entire, original Jowneko interview. I believe I saw the 1st part only [at a different website] so it may become clearer in parts 2 or 3 which actual alleged “live” footage of WTC7′s collapse he saw : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

      you haven’t watched the entire interview?

      What do you think was actually shown to him? The guy is very lucid and actually offers his expert opinion on what he sees. On how it could actually have been done.

      Even if the inteviewer had filmed him watching Building 7 coming down (hindsight is a wonderful thing), you’d say it was fake anyway.

      This is why I object to your Frankenstein “theory”. Building 7 can clearly be seen being CDed. The government lapdogs have been exposed as liars. And a demo expert, who probably paid for his honesty with his life, tells it like it is, but you’d prefer to piss on it because it just doesn’t fit into your complicated, contradictory and negative wordplay that would have us all on these forums forever shrugging our shoulders.

      Watch the damn thing.

      He’s shown overhead shots, building plans and is aware of WTC1 and 2’s collapses. He even estimates the distance between Building 7 and the towers. He even discusses the smoke/dust emanating fom the base of Building 7 as it started to come down! Sound familiar?

      I know you haven’t a clue about it judging by your lack of response to flaws that this non-expert took half an hour to research on the video you posted.

      1. Just to avoid confusion here OSS…you addressed this post to Dennis, but it is under OBF as a response to him and are obviously addressing Shack and OBF in your commentary…

        I notice this, and hope Dennis does as well.

        ww

  53. Hybridrogue wrote:
    “Having no desire to take a trip to Mars, I will decline that offer. If you want my input on any imagery provide the actual footage, not GIF animations.
    Real video, or quality jpgs.”

    Lol !… So Willy is asking for “Real videos”? That’s a quite funny request!

    Willy, the “Postcard Shot” is to be found in the official ABC TV archives, at 34:36 in this clip:
    http://archive.org/details/abc200109110831-0912

    Now, Willy dear : Are you going to play stupid for much longer? Am I supposed to spoon-feed you through the 9/11 TV archive material – each and every time I submit a looped GIF of the same? See, the ABC broadcast (from which the GIF of the “Postcard Shot” was made) even features a time counter at bottom right. Can you see that it says “9:05”? Well, let me teach you a simple trick: next time you see such a time stamp, just go to the main page of the 9/11 TV archives and look it up for yourself, ok?

    THE SEPTEMBER 11 TELEVISON ARCHIVE
    http://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive/

    Oh, and if you wish to learn more about the 9/11 TV archives themselves :

    THE 9/11 TV ARCHIVES
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1295

    1. Shack,

      In case you didn’t notice I answered your stupid riddle in a post above at:
      July 19, 2012 at 7:41 pm

      ww

  54. As per my admission of going to the fitness club at oh-dark-early [after taking a few minutes to appreciate celestial wonders], I was indeed at the club this morning.

    Late in my workout, I got on a piece of new equipment towards the back in one room that has [rinky-dink coincidentally] eleven (11) flat-screen TV’s along the front wall. [As usual] I did not have my headphones plugged into the tuner, nor was I close enough for my eyes (without glasses) to read all the fine print in the banners, just the larger titles. I wasn’t paying attention on purpose, and was just visually scanning between the eleven televisions.

    Did I mention that I live in Colorado, the same state in the news today because of the Movie Theater shooting last night? As such, all of the local news talking heads and footage (abc, nbc, cbs) were hot onto this theme. One of the stations had a helicopter that was circling the theater, by that time basking in the dawn light.

    I thought the helicopter was from station A. Here was the strange thing. All of sudden on the adjacent TV that was tuned to local competitor station B, I see the exact same LIVE helicopter feed, but with this one distinction: its banners were different and didn’t credit the source station. Not just different, less. And when it comes to TV station banners, less is more in my book, and that is why I first noticed it. Station B was actually showing more of the raw feed with its modified, smaller banner.

    Then, of course, on both station A and station B, the producers independently shift from two tiled windows of the helicopter shot and their talking heads, to just the helicopter shot, to reporters-on-the-scene, yada, yada, yada. But because I wasn’t tuned into the audio and wasn’t reading the text, I could focus on the moments in time when a version of the LIVE helicopter shot appeared in parallel on both stations.

    But as mentioned, there were eleven (11) television sets. At least abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, fox, and msn were part of those tuned into news for the early-morning die-hard fitness fanatics. The amazing thing is that eventually the exact same LIVE helicopter shot began appearing at the same time on these various news outlets. [Occassionally, the LIVE shot was delayed by several seconds.] From what I could tell without my spectacles, none were really attributing a single-source but were applying their own banner on top of the identical feed and branding it as their own.

    Aside from the eleven (11) television sets and this being the eleventh (11) year since 9/11, I was reminded by this inexplicable sharing of common footage between “competing” networks of the sharing that happened on 9/11 between “competing” networks (a surviving nugget of truth from September Clues.)

    Consolidation of our news into a few hands is complete.

    What really struck me, though, is why there is not raw feed from 9/11 without obnoxious banners — that another surviving nugget of truth from September Clues proves was particularly tall and obnoxious on 9/11? Yep, this is another sign of media complicity on 9/11. And we see today’s news coverage has integrated even further into their productions “single-source” feeds.

    Now go back to what you were previously doing. And don’t forget to make an effort to view the oh-dark-early sky [4-5 am] for the celestial wonders happening this very instance.

    1. The BATMAN MOVIE SHOOTER:

      “Suspect is neuroscience Ph.D. candidate –Suspect, dressed in black wearing gas mask, ‘calm during shooting’ –At least 12 dead, 50 hurt in Colorado movie theater shooting –Military confirms military members were in theater –Shooter’s apartment building rigged with explosives –Three service members wounded –Shooter had 4 weapons, 3 in theater – 1 in car, gas canisters –‘How would a civilian get his hands on these weapons?’ asks Fox News analyst. 20 Jul 2012 [This story will be updated.]The Pentagon says that some members of the military were either killed or wounded in the Colorado shooting at the Batman movie.”

      …..

      I am more than a little suspicious about this…another “Lone Nut Shooter”?

      I suspect this is an inside job, another in a series to move towards disarming the population. The ‘Fast and Furious’ gambit collapsed…now another string of these things is cranking up for a “Long Hot Summer”.

      I figure the whole bag of tricks will be thrown at us this summer and fall…Keep yer glazzies pealed kiddos.

      ww

      1. What worries me more is the dual assassinations of Assad’s right hand men and the “suicide bombing” of a busload of Israeli tourists with Iran immediately being blamed.

        But yeah, the “lone nut” phenomenon always had Manchurian Candidate qualities for me. The scenario where somebody allegedly has a psychotic break yet can meticulously plan military-like operations.

        And wasn’t this not far from Columbine?

  55. Yea OSS, the whole world is ticking like a time bomb…look at the lunacy in London as well over the Olympics…

    I think Syria’s days are numbered before a NATO invasion. But if Israel is stupid enough to attack Iran…bye bye Levant [and maybe WWIII]

    Maybe Mr Once can tell us how close Columbine is to the suburb the theater was in..??

    ww

    1. You wouldn’t want to walk from Columbine High School in Littleton to the movie theater in Aurora. Certainly not during the heat of the day; drink plenty of water. But if you were to use a bicyle, easily a one to three hour ride, depending on fitness level and ability to navigate bike paths and neighborhoods with less traffic. Driving time in a car depends on traffic and route, but 25-45 minutes easily.

      Suspect is neuroscience Ph.D. candidate

      Holmes was studying neuroscience in a Ph.D. program at the University of Colorado-Denver graduate school. University of Colorado spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery says Holmes was a student until last month. Montgomery says Holmes enrolled in the program in June 2011 and was in the process of withdrawing.

      Mind control experiment gone awry… (or as planned.)

  56. Hey OSS, we may have a candidate for a ‘Dark Knight Vigilante’ on this very blog.

    On the next thread over [More Absurd Arguments] – some guy named James. You should read the flambe hurlant this guy laid on me…near the end of the thread…especially the last part.
    This fellow seems a pressure cooker about to blow his lid. Whew, and wow.

    ww

  57. >Aurora Shooting Mirrored Training Exercise on Same Day Near Denver –‘The irony is amazing, just amazing.’ 21 Jul 2012 The tragedy that played out in an Aurora movie theater Friday was ironically paralleled as a classroom learning experience in a medical school in Parker the same day. Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine is in the middle of holding specialized classes in disaster life support for 150 second-year medical students. Along with response to natural disasters like hurricanes and floods and terrorist attacks, one of the scenarios being used to train the students is how to respond if a shooter fires at people in a movie theater and also uses a bomb in the attack. “The irony is amazing, just amazing,” said Rocky Vista Dean Dr. Bruce Dubin.
    ……….
    Same thing with 9/11, “training exercises” of planes flying into buildings that same morning.

    7/7 London train bombing, “training exercises” that same morning mirroring EXACTLY what really happened.

    Each time they say “How ironic” or “what an Amazing Coincidence”
    Such obvious bullshit.
    ……….

    >Witness: Someone let gunman inside Colorado movie theater20 Jul 2012 A man who was at the Colorado movie theater where a dozen people were killed this morning, says he saw the gunman. He says he thinks someone deliberately let the gunman inside once the movie started. Here’s what he told TV station KCNC this morning live on their newscast. [See also: Aurora, Colorado Shooting ‘Oddities’ by LRP.] 

    ww

  58. http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/aurora-massacre-what-does-the-location-of-the-gas-mask-tell-us-what-about-security-cameras-are-they-related/

    AURORA — The following is a timeline of actual events that took place just after the mass shooting was reported to 911 in a Colorado theatre during a midnight showing of the new Batman film:

    4 MIN. 30 SEC… SUSPECT CAUGHT
    6 MIN 46 SEC… “One of the shooters is wearing white and blue clothing”
    8 MIN 6 SEC… WITNESSES REPORT MULTIPLE SUSPECTS
    16 MIN 8 SEC… MALE SUSPECT SEEN WITH RED BACK PACK AND ANOTHER ALL IN BLACK FLEEING THE SCENE
    16 MIN. 47 SEC… Cops describe one of the suspects as male, dressed in black camo, vest, gas mask, and possessing multiple long guns.
    17 MIN 48 SEC… JAMES HOLMES WAS NAMED…. BUT SECONDS BEFORE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT A SECOND SUSPECT ON LOOSE…. GOT AWAY”

    Recording of police broadcasts – dialog between dispatcher police in the field.

    A You Tube of the police dispatcher can be seen/heard at:

    http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/james-e-holmes-oh-yea-mk-ultrad-indeed/

    ww

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s