As I used the term, "video fakey", it encompasses any use of video to mislead or deceive its intended audience. The primary instance under
consideration here is the footage that purports to show United Airlines Flight 175 as it impacts with the South Tower, especially the film attributed
to Michael Herzarkhani and to Evan Fairbanks, which are the most familiar. But I will also discuss the Naudet brothers' footage of American Flight 11
hitting the North Tower. This turns out to be one of the three most contentious issues in 9/11 research along with the question of whether a Boeing
757 hit the Pentagon and how the Twin Towers were demolished. After we conduct a discussion of video fakery on this thread, I will create another
about what did or didn't happen at the Pentagon, so we can be systematic in our discussion. Then we can turn to the destruction of the Twin Towers.
A good place to begin would probably be my "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?", twilightpines.com...
which I presented in
Buenos Aires on 11 September 2009. The first fifteen slides of that presentation cover some of the most important issues involved here, including
showing a diagram of the structure of the South Tower that would have been impacted by Flight 175 hitting the South Tower. (For Flight 11 hitting the
North Tower, one fewer floor would have been hit, seven rather than the eight at the South Tower. But the principles involved are the same.) My most
extensive discussion of video fakery/no planes was in Seattle on 13 December 2009, "Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?", which can be
found on my blog at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...
Kevin Barrett, with whom I have made many presentations on 9/11 and co-hosted "The Dynamic Duo" has, challenged me to offer the strongest case I can
present for my views on video fakery, which have evolved over the past several years from skepticism to acceptance. During that time, I have
conducted more than fifteen interviews with students of video fakery and became convinced by the evidence they produced that there is no reasonable
alternative explanation. In "More Proof of Video Fakery", I presented the five arguments that I consider to be the most compelling were published in
Barrett's Truth Jihad News (July 16, 2008) as follows:
(1) Multiple experts (including the FAA, the Royal Air Force, and so on) have calculated the speed of United 175 as reflected by the Michael
Herzarkhani video at approximately 560 mph (averaging their estimates). While that corresponds to the cruise speed of a Boeing 767 at 35,000 feet
altitude, it would be impossible at 700-1000 feet altitude, where the air is three times more dense, as Joe Keith, an aerospace engineer and designer
of the Boeing "shaker system," has recently explained in the video entitled, "Flight 175 - Impossible Speed". Since Jeff Hill has recently taken it
down, however, here is a response by Anthony Lawson, who has offered his rebuttal, "BUSTED!" in this 10-minute video:
but which PIlots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed.
(2) The way in which the plane enters the building appears to be impossible as well. If you visit his web site at killtown.blogspot.com...
scroll to (what is now) the sixth image, then you can view the plane interacting with the building. It is passing into the steel and concrete
structure without displaying any signs of impact, where the wings, the engines, the fuselage and other component parts all remain intact. Here is one
example, but there are many others: www.youtube.com...
It should have been the case that massive debris was breaking off and
the plane was being dismantled by the interaction between the moving plane and the stationary building, as early critics and late -- from the Web
Fairy to Morgan Reynolds -- have been maintaining for years now. So this is yet another physical impossibility.
(3) As Joe Keith has observed, the interaction observed here also violates all three of Newton's laws of motion. According to the first law, objects
in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. According to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of the force
applied. According to the third, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air
and building, which would violate Newton's laws unless the building provides no more resistance (force) than air, which is absurd. By most counts,
the plane moves its length through air in 8 frames and also moves its length into the building in the same number of frames, which cannot be the case
if these are real objects and real interactions. This is the argument that convinced me that video fakery had to have been taking place on 9/11.
(4) Neither the impact of United 175 with the South Tower nor the impact of American 11 with the North show the damage done to the steel and concrete
in the form of the "cut-outs" that subsequently appear at the time they were allegedly being "caused" by the planes' impacts there. On Flight 175,
see, for example, the slow-motion footage at www.disclose.tv...
of the Naudet brothers footage reveals a secondary explosion after the initial impact and fireballs that actually causes the cut-out in the North
Tower. Indeed, an extension of the right wing's cut-out was even "penciled in." Take a look at the study of this phenomenon under "9/11 Amateur,
Part 2." It is fair to infer that the same technique was employed to create the cut-out images in the South Tower.
(5) The same student of the videos has examined the Evan Fairbank's footage and found ample grounds to dispute it. Certainly, it shows the same
smooth entry as the Herzarkani footage and the same lack of debris from the encounter. However, it goes further in considering the angle of the shot
and how he came to take it, which suggests that he is lying through his teeth. He claims he saw a "white flash" and was able to determine it was a
jet. But the time line is so brief that this explanation appears to be a complete fabrication. View this study at "9/11 Amateur, Part 3." Killtown
has now extended the uniform motion argument to Evan Fairbank's video, as can be observed in the very first image currently archived on his site,
Morgan Reynolds has also authored an exceptional study about these event that in his, "Plane Deceit at the World Trade Center", which has 54 pages
with 71 footnotes and is archived on his website. Reynolds, the former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor in the Bush Administration, is an
accomplished scholar with a half-dozen books to his credit and innumerable articles. I myself earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of
science and am the author or editor of 28 books, including three on JFK and one on 9/11. I mention these points because there is no good reason to
deny that we are both serious scholars with many accomplishments to our names who would not be defending theses about 9/11 in which we did not believe
with good reason.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth has previously published a press release (July 28, 2007) about this subject, "Mounting Evidence of 9/11 Video Fakery," which
is archived at 911scholars.org. What is most powerful about these new arguments, in my view, is that they display the occurrence of events that would
require violations of laws of physics, which is not possible. Laws of physics cannot be violated and cannot be changed, which means if they are being
shown in videos, they cannot be authentic. As Ace Baker, musician, composer and expert on digital processing, has recently observed, "9/11 seems to
have been a media job as much as it was an inside job." His own study, "Chopper Five Composite," may be found here.
Indeed, there appear to be at least three possible ways in which video fakery might have been effected on 9/11. One is by the use of computer
generated images, such as using MicroSoft Simulator to create the image of the pane hitting the building. Rosalee Grable (aka "The WebFairy") has
reported that, in a software package that is not longer available, the simulated plane passes through the tower with the "nose out" on the other side
as many students of these events have observed. Another is video compositing, which involves adding additional imagery to a "live feed" in the
interval between the time it is taken and the time it is actually broadcast, which can run as long as 17 seconds. That is the position that is
defended by Ace Baker.
The third is the possible use of sophisticated holograms to project the image of a plane that is in fact not there. We have support for this
possibility from John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, who has not only given affidavits about the impossible speed of the plane
in the videos we are discussing but has observed that the absence of strobe lights on the top and bottom of the fuselage indicates we are viewing a
fake plane. I like this hypothesis, because it accounts for the impossible speed, the fake entry into the building, and reports from witnesses who
claim to have seen the plane, such as Scott Forbes, whom I interviewed on 10 September 2010, and Steven Brown, on 27 August 2010, on "The Real Deal",
. Scott, who worked in the South Tower, told me he saw the building "swallow the plane", while Steven had recently
taken a course on holography at Cambridge and supported its technical feasibility.
Video fakery and no planes are not the same thing, since, although the planes must have been present if the videos were authentic, they might or might
not have been present if the videos are fake. They could have been faked for the purpose of concealing features of the planes or of their interaction
with the buildings. Although the absence of planes is even more controversial than video fakery, I would observe, there is considerable circumstantial
evidence suggesting that, in this case, video fakery may have been required to conceal the absence of planes. The alleged eyewitness reports, for
example, are far fewer than we tend to suppose. The occurrence of false memory syndrome, especially in believing we have seen events "live" that we
only watched on television, appears to be a simpler explanation than violations of Newton's laws.
The debris often cited in support of the existence of real planes has itself been repeatedly challenged. The engine found on the sidewalk in New York
appears to have come from a Boeing 737, not a 767. Similarly, a piece of debris from an American Airlines crash found at the Pentagon and often touted
has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995. Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) has observed that each of these planes had thousands of
uniquely identifiable component parts, not a single one of which has been recovered from any of the four "crash sites." And John Lear, an aviation
expert, has pointed out that, before any commercial carrier can pull away from the terminal, the captain must submit an "envelope" certifying that the
plane was ready for flight. Yet not one of these envelopes has been produced, either.
Perhaps even more important, Elias Davidsson has a masterful study of the lack of evidence the alleged Arab terrorists were aboard any of the planes,
among the most important papers in 9/11 research. I know that Kevin is familiar with his work, because Kevin featured Davidsson as a guest on "The
Dynamic Duo" (July 11, 2008). I don't know what he makes of all of this, but the available evidence could be explained with high probability if there
were no planes and all this had to have been faked. I submit that any rational mind considering the evidence presented here should similarly conclude
that video fakery took place in New York and that there is a very strong possibility that the planes were an illusion. How else is this evidence to be
explained? What would be a more reasonable alternative? The key to understanding 9/11 may turn out to have been the occurrence of what were actually
"phantom flights". I will add more, but this should serve as a beginning.
edit on 2-3-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: After review of the thread material, a hoax tag has been applied to the subject line.