Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11? [HOAX]

All,

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: www.youtube.com... 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... and 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... A study 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, killtown.blogspot.com....

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", radiofetzer.blogspot.com.... 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.

Jim

reply to post by JimFetzer

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

There was no concrete in the fascia of the towers.

Fail. If you can't get the basics just give it up.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by JimFetzer

 

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

There was no concrete in the fascia of the towers.

Fail. If you can't get the basics just give it up.

Wow. That's the only nit to pick? I think you might have been the one to fail...

reply to post by JimFetzer

Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?

NO.

Man, you must be late to the party.....this has been hashed out LONG ago.

Google Video Link

reply to post by Amaterasu


Actually, that was just one of many. But I think that "nit" is a pretty big one. The guy is making the argument that the plane could not have penetrated the exterior wall of the towers the way it did, but doesn't even know how the walls are constructed. Yeah, that's a big "nit".

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weed - You should Google the full text of each of his paragraphs. This OP didn't even try to change text... He just blatantly copied and pasted someone's work, attempting to pass it off as his own. Pathetic!


I wouldn't expect much more from anyone that is still beating THIS dead horse!

I think before this threads continues the terms and rules should be read again.

Originally posted by AboveTopSecret.com

Important 9/11 Forum Policy Update: December 12, 2007

See the following thread for additional information:
Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)
The original policy alert below also still applies.

 

Any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.

We've received an overwhelming number of member complaints since the topic of "TV Fakery" splashed on the ATS scene a few days ago. Most of the member complaints are dealing with the trollish nature of the new member(s) promoting these theories, and a handful of supporting characters.


From this point forward, ONE TV FAKERY THREAD WILL REMAIN OPEN.
This one: SEPTEMBER CLUES exposes 911 TV Fakery
The opening posts of all "TV Fakery" threads will be modified to direct users to this thread. And likewise, this remaining open thread's first post will contain links to important questions raised by our members.

For now, new "TV Fakery" or "No Planes" threads based on the work of this group will be deleted. Please use the existing thread indicated above to add any new material to the discussion. Repeated attempts to start new threads may result in account termination. If we see an improvement in tone, and an effort for collaboration, this restriction will likely be lifted. It's up to them.


It's unfortunate that what seems to be aa habitually malicious group has seen fit to act this way over events that deserve thoughtful debate, open research, and most of all collaborative participation. We've added additional staff to the 9/11 forum, and we'll be watching closely. Members, please help us by using the new "post alert" button when you see issues you believe we should be aware of.


Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
The staff of AboveTopSecret.com




UPDATE: Topic Activists On ATS




[edit on 12-12-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

Can we get a mod here?

The debunkers are salivating.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JimFetzer

 

Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?

NO.
Man, you must be late to the party.....this has been hashed out LONG ago.

And everything in that old lame attempt at debunking SC has been debunked repeatedly ad-naseum not to mention mountains of other evidence and new evidence thats been presented ad-naseum which you nor anyone including that ancient SC debunk, has addressed or remotely disproven. bummer ain't it

Originally posted by JimFetzer
All,

As I used the term, "video fakey",

That is all well and good, but you need to account for the eyewitness accounts of the planes impacting the Towers.

How do you plan on doing that?

Originally posted by JimFetzer

" 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.

So, can our resident pilot throw any light on this?.

Originally posted by Seventh

Originally posted by JimFetzer

" 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.

So, can our resident pilot throw any light on this?.

Yeah....a load of rubbish.

Absolutely and unequivocally amazing! A large commercial airliner slicing through a steel framed skyscraper (like a hot knife through butter) at over 500 MPH and not a single spark to be seen prior to the explosion. Surely, the tremendous amount of friction involved at that speed would have resulted in sparks flying...no?

Looks like the digital video production amateur they recruited to create these lousy special effects did not have the expertise to create realistic looking sparks.

What's the line in the Bruce song...'Can't start a fire without a spark'?

"You can't start a fire worrying about your little world falling apart
This gun's for hire
Even if we're just dancing in the dark"

This one is dedicated to the 9/11 debunkers (guns for hire), who are witnessing their little word fall apart.

Originally posted by hooper

There was no concrete in the fascia of the towers.

He's referring to the concrete in the floors.



As you said: Fail. If you can't get the basics just give it up.

"So, can our resident pilot throw any light on this?"

Contrary to the "rubbish" you read from some people, alleged airplane pilots are not experts in airplane crashes; their job is to fly airplanes and avoid crashes. The ones who are experts in airplane crashes are Aviation Accident Reconstruction Experts, whose job is to investigate and draw conclusions on these crashes. If these accident reconstruction teams require additional experts (such as credible pilots with genuine qualifications), they will employ their services.

Yeah...accident reconstruction experts...the same team of experts who the insurance companies, who paid out billions of dollars in 9/11 settlements, DID NOT use to investigate these alleged crashes. Instead, these insurers, who had billions to lose, obviously authorized the destruction of key physical evidence at the site and relied on Harley Guy for drawing their final conclusions as to what happened on 9/11.

So go ahead and be distracted by the story of Government involvement in 9/11. The bottom line is that if these insurance carriers did not pre-authorize the payment of billions and the destruction of vital physical evidence in this apparent fraudulent case, 9/11 never happens.

I guess for the first time in history, the insurers were overcome with a sense of immense generosity and decided to suspend normal procedures in coverage and claims handling.

This is about the quality of response I would expect from some of the know-nothings who resist the truth about 9/11. Did you look at the first fifteen slides of my Powerpoint presentation, "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?" If you had, you would have learned that Flight 175, had it been a real plane, would have intersected with no less than eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4"-8" of concrete, which were connected to the core columns at one end to the external support columns at the other. The horizontal resistance they provided would have been enormous, since they represent about an acre of concrete apiece. When you consider the damage done by hitting a tiny bird in flight, it becomes apparent that anyone, like hooper, who buys into the official account of 9/11 simply does not understand either the design of the building or the basic elements of classical mechanics. Sorry, hooper, but if you wanted to demonstrate your ignorance of these issues, then you have hit a home run!

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by JimFetzer

 

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

There was no concrete in the fascia of the towers.

Fail. If you can't get the basics just give it up.

Wow. That's the only nit to pick? I think you might have been the one to fail...

weedwhacker, have you never studied logic or critical thinking? Don't you know that a denial is not an argument? Is this what I am going to be getting from the "anti-9/11 truth brain trust" here at ATS? You need to consider each of the arguments I have presented, explain the argument (so we know that you have understood it), and then tell us what I have wrong. Otherwise your posts are irrelevant and are not worth reading. I really expected better.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JimFetzer

 

Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?

NO.

Man, you must be late to the party.....this has been hashed out LONG ago.

Google Video Link

Resurrectio needs to check his sources. The only work I would borrow from is my own! Maybe Resurrectio doesn't know who I am, but I am also the author of "More Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11". So I have indeed used some of the paragraphs from my own previously published article, but added new material and rewritten other. If someone wants to make a charge like this--which, after all, represents a form of plagiarism--then it should be easy to show the paragraphs and their sources, side by side. Otherwise, this is another example of baseless allegations coming from a group of 9/11 opponents demonstrating again that they can't shoot straight!

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Weed - You should Google the full text of each of his paragraphs. This OP didn't even try to change text... He just blatantly copied and pasted someone's work, attempting to pass it off as his own. Pathetic!


I wouldn't expect much more from anyone that is still beating THIS dead horse!

Sorry, hooper, but if you wanted to demonstrate your ignorance of these issues, then you have hit a home run! Is this what I am going to be getting from the "anti-9/11 truth brain trust" here at ATS?

At least you can't say you weren't forewarned about certain individuals here who serve absolutely no purpose, but to drag the quality of the investigative discussions (and the site) through the mud.

reply to post by JimFetzer


???

More nonsense, I'm afraid:

.... you would have learned that Flight 175, had it been a real plane, would have intersected with no less than eight (8) floor....

From YOUR (junk claims) website (I assume, IF you are the "Jim Fetzer"):



About four floors. For the BULK and center of mass of the airplane. Really, from engine-to-engine laterally. SOME of the mass of the fuel, in the wing sections outboard of the engines had kinetic energy and momentum, thus aided in their penetration through the building's facade. Further, in any case, F = MA. Basic physics.



Sure you may be familiar with the bunk written here??:

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

THIS rubbish:

These were two Boeing KC-767TT airborne refueling aircraft capable of carrying 15,005 gallons of high octane jet fuel in on-board tank.

Only takes minimal research to prove it WRONG!

en.wikipedia.org...

More lies from the "truthers"!! The "KC-767" was still on the drawing board in 2002!

Wait, here's a detail the "scholars" apparently overlooked (from the Wiki article):

Boeing continued development of the aircraft.Italy selected the KC-767A and signed a contract in 2002 becoming the launch customer, with delivery set for 2005. The Italian Air Force (Aeronautica Militare) ordered four aircraft. This version is based on the 767-200ER and is named the KC-767 Tanker Transport, and is fitted with boom and hose-drogue refueling systems on the centerline with hose-drogue wingpod systems.[15]

Italy's aircraft became the first KC-767 to be assembled.

Delivery in 2005!!! FIRST airplane assembled!!!

Really, credibility on this = ZERO. Every bit of junk on the "scholars4truth" site.....





It is truly funny...."scholars"!!