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

Originally posted by JimFetzer
This is silly. The deceleration would not be subtle. Its velocity would go to zero, with some parts moving through the building, in particular, the engines. I wish you would give this more serious thought. You can count the frames in either the Hezarkhani or the Fairbanks videos and they are the same. In both videos, the plane passes thought its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. Get over it.

reply to post by FDNY343

 

edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer beause: (no reason given)

Really? You think that in 6 frames, you would be able to see a deceleration measurable on something that records what, 5 MP?

Seriously? Why would you think that?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The paint fleck did not pass through the windshield any more than the plane would have passed through the building.

You're correct. The plane did not pass THROUGH the building. It went INTO the building.

Originally posted by JimFetzer

I can't believe the childishness of the arguments you are making.

Ad Hom attacks are not allowed. I haven't done it to you Jim, don't do it to me.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
For those of you who believe that the footage is authentic, here's your chance to pocked $100,000. Ace Baker has just reiterated his offer: $100,000 for any original quality 9/11 airplane video showing the plane go into the building.

acebaker.blogspot.com...

Sincerely,

Ace Baker "ace baker"
[email protected]

Tuesday, April 28, 2009
$100,000 Amateur Video Challenge
Did you or someone you know shoot amateur video of an airplane crash on 9/11? If so, it could net you a hundred grand.

As readers of my work already know, I don't believe any airplanes crashed anywhere on 9/11. All of the airplane crash videos are video composites, says me. Prove me wrong, and make a quick $100,000 U.S.

The problem is none of the 9/11 airplane videos are available in their original quality. I highly suspect that this is due to the fact that reducing quality on a composite image is the best way to hide the messy fingerprints of the compositing process.

To sort it out, I offer this next in what has become a series of $100,000 challenges. To meet the challenge:

1. The video must show "UA175" hitting the south tower.
2. You must allow me to inspect the original tape on which the event was recorded. It must be originally recorded video on "mini DV", or other DV format.
3. The airplane video must match in quality the other videos present on the tape. Any attempt to copy onto the DV tape video that has been further compressed, or reduced in dimensions, or subjected to any unnecessary quality loss is grounds for disqualification.
4. You must allow me to create a high-quality, uncompressed digitization of the video, directly from the original tape.
5. You will grant to me a non-exclusive license to publish the footage.


Jennifer Spell? Evan Fairbanks? Luc Courchesne? Michael Hezarkhani? Any takers?

I warrant that I have a line of credit in excess of $100,000.

Applicants may contact me via the email link, top right.

-Ace Baker

edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: fixing email address

edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: fixing email address

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, the impossible speed has been confirmed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and explained by John Lear.

You should be aware that John Lear has a checkered history at best, and at worst is a confused old man once employed by the CIA.

When posting here on this Above Top Secret, his ideas and concepts were so outlandish, he often later admitted to having no proof for most of his postings, and therefore applied this to his post signature to avoid constant confrontations:
1. All of my claims are only possibilities.
2. I could be completely misinformed.
3. All of what I believe might not be true.

Additionally, you should be aware that he believed there to be a submarine base in the US desert southwest (with underground channels to both oceans), and he actively promoted a UFO case (Billy Meier) that has been well-proven to have been a hoax.

If you choose to believe Mr. Lear, then you choose to discredit yourself.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
You can count the frames in either the Hezarkhani or the Fairbanks videos and they are the same. In both videos, the plane passes thought its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.

Would you be so kind as to:

1] Provide links to the video(s) you're discussing

2] Provide information on the source video used for comparisons -- specifically compression codec, keyframes, and frame rate


Additionally, I suppose you may be aware of the concept of momentum?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The deceleration would not be subtle. Its velocity would go to zero, with some parts moving through the building, in particular, the engines. I wish you would give this more serious thought. You can count the frames in either the Hezarkhani or the Fairbanks videos and they are the same. In both videos, the plane passes thought its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.

Would you care to comment on what is observed in this video:



The side-view would seem to soundly refute your claims here. When confronted with a solid concrete wall, the tail-section of the aircraft continues forward at the same velocity -- not slowing down.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
This is silly. The deceleration would not be subtle. Its velocity would go to zero, with some parts moving through the building, in particular, the engines. I wish you would give this more serious thought.

Once again, JimFetzer proves categorically that he has no grasp on Newtonian physics and seems to believe that real life physical interactions should appear like a Warner Brothers cartoon.

Cheese grater, Jim. How long are you going to keep comparing the WTCs to a tree and not a cheese grater? A cheese grater scales much better and mimics the observed effects far better than a tree ever will

Click here to learn more about this warning.

These attacks on John Lear are classic ad hominems. We are talking about the views of one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, who has given very precise explanations for why a Boeing 767 could not possibly have flown at 560 mph at 700-1,000 feet altitude. Unless you can defeat his arguments, all your complains are no more than attempts to distract the participants in this thread from devastating arguments based upon the laws of aerodynamics. Interesting, John, on another thread, has posted an entirely different line of argument, which I want to share here.

From John Lear:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that a Boeing 767 even with the
outboard ailerons locked out above 280 kts could have rolled the
angle of bank shown the WTC South Tower (Flight 175).

But that's not the question.

The question is how the alleged Arab hijacker knew
when to start the bank travelling at 831ft./second
560 mph x 5,280 ft per mile=
2,956,800 ft. per hour divided by 60 for per minute
by 60 again for per second= 821 ft/second

So judging from the time in the video when the bank starts
to the alleged collision is 1.5 seconds which means the
bank had to be executed 1231 feet prior to collision.

The question in my mind would be how would a highjacker with
minimum time in the aircraft and no time at 560 mph be able to
judge 1231 feet distance to go to get the airplane into the bank at the correct instant?

In other words unless he had made a prior flight and taken note of the
distance away from the south tower 1231 feet and noted which building
he was flying over as a prompt as where to start the bank I find it impossible
for a pilot, any pilot to have made that bank at the exact second.

Further, how did the alleged hijacker arrange this split second timing and hit
the building within 34 feet of dead center? Pretty darn accurate for a novice
pilot.

I would appreciate any corrections in my calculations. Thanks

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Ron wrote:

www.youtube.com...

Here is a video slide show of 175 and the hit. Without guarantee that it is the original Park Foreman video of the plane but it shows the instant bank maneouvre.

What is inaccurate about this version? May be it's because UA Flight 175 couldn't respond to the controls so well as this one seems to.

Morgan Reynolds challenged him on the use of the phrase "dead center" but then agreed:

Dead center is 104 feet from either end, so 34 feet from dead center toward east is 70 feet from the east end of the ST and 138 feet from west end, so the plane image would be 2/3 from the west end and 1/3 from the east. By my ruler, the pic shows the center of the fuselage approximately 6/16 from east end (37.5%) and 10/16 from west end (62.5%), so 34 feet is in the ballpark.

And John Lear replied:

34 from dead center, dead center, 100 feet from dead it doesn't matter. The point is it would have been impossible for a novice pilot to crash into the building as depicted in the video simply beccause it requires split second timing from the time the airplane begins its bank until it hit. With the ailerons locked out above 280 knots and travelling at the alleged 560 mph its going to take one heck of a strong pilot to move the controls in any case. For a pilot who had maybe one hour or less of flight time how is going to know its going to require that much strength to bank the airplane in 1.5 seconds.

reply to post by mister.old.school

I don't mind the concept of a cheese grater here, where the point remains that the plane would have shredded, with most of it remaining external to the building, where the wings and tail would have broken off and seats, bodies and luggage fallen to the ground. None of that happened. Parts of the plane, including the engines. would have penetrated, but most of it would not have. There IS something cartoonish here, however, which is the cookie-cutter cut outs of the silhouettes of the planes at both the North and the South Towers. This was point (4) of my article, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", www.opednews.com...

reply to post by Fitzgibbon

The Sandia test of an F-4 has often been cited as some kind of counter-example, except that the analogy is obviously flawed. It was attached to a railroad frame and run at 500 mph into a nuclear-resistant, concrete barricade, which caused it to blast apart into millions of tiny pieces. Since the trajectory was perpendicular to the wall, the tail continued forward in accordance with Newton's first law. But the Boeing 767 was impacting the South Tower at an angle, where its wings and tail should have broken off. Moreover, the plane had to have been made of composite or it would not have been converted into millions of tiny pieces. The Boeing was made of aluminum and would have been crumpled and shredded, but not converted into millions of tiny pieces. So while I appreciate the effort by mister.old.school, his argument does not support the conclusion he wants to derive from it.

reply to post by mister.old.school

One of the key features of scientific studies is their replicability. I have cited my sources in "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", but you are welcome to replicate these studies. The plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air in both the videos. Try the Fairbanks, if you like, and put the video on single-frame advance. Count the number of frames it takes to pass through its own length in air and the number of frames it takes to pass through its own length into the building. They are the same. Repeat.

reply to post by mister.old.school

Originally posted by JimFetzer
These attacks on John Lear are classic ad hominems. We are talking about the views of one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, who has given very precise explanations for why a Boeing 767 could not possibly have flown at 560 mph at 700-1,000 feet altitude.

So, it's unlikely that a "distinguished pilot" may become confused and/or delusional as he ages?

And, it's not possible that a "distinguished pilot" may become enamored with the attention offered by online "conspiracy people" and embellish or manufacture ideas, theories, and calculations to continue receiving attention?


You should be aware that, back in 2004, before Mr. Lear became heavily involved in online conspiracy theories, he posted in favor of the "official story," in addition to confirming it was possible for the 767 to travel at speeds up to 605 miles per hour.

www.fantasticforum.com...

Posted by johnlear on 08-25-2004 05:57 PM:

As I mentioned on Art's show last March it would have been a simple matter to train a non-pilot to:

Once in air and having taken over the cockpit to (1) reach up on the overhead panel and pull the ATC transponder circuit breaker (2) sit in the left seat and buckle up) (3) disconnect the autopilot (4) tune in the JFK VOR (5) turn the airplane towards New York (6) start a descent (7) when established on the heading and within 20 miles tune in the Colts Neck VOR and follow it (8) arrive in an arcing turn towards the north over Colts Neck VOR at 1000 feet (9) Visually pick up the first of maybe 4 major check points that would lead directly to the WTC (10) establish visual contact with the WTC (11) descend to 600 feet (12) when established on course to WTC and level at 600 feet put throttles full forward (aircraft hit at 605 mph according to last primary radar hit)(12) over last checkpoint, approximately 2 miles and approximately 12 seconds from impact travelling at 605 mph (aircraft is travelling 1 mile every 6 seconds) turn aircraft to 90 degrees right bank (no course change will occur because of speed) so that impact of place will cause the most damage to the most number of floors. Neither the pilot nor anybody in the airplane ever felt the slightest discomfort as there would not been enough time for any kind for sensation or pain to travel to the brain.

As I said training a pilot with very little experience or non-pilot to do this would have been a relatively simple matter in a Boeing 757/767 simulator. It would have taken about 300 hours per pilot and at 2 standard 4 hour training sessions per day with 1 day off a week it would have taken about 38 training days days or about 6 weeks. So for 5 pilots, each pilot sitting in the right seat while the other pilot flew the mission maybe about 5 or 6 months. Daily unrestricted access to a Boeing 757/767 simulator where complete control over the simulator maintenance department was maintained (simulator maintenance is outside and below the simulator next the banks of computors). Complete control over maintenance is necessary because (1) simulators break down occasionally, and (2) automatic recording of every maneuver is kept on the computer and you wouldn't want some unknown maintenance guy watching the airplane hit the WTC every 30 minutes or so,

Obviously you could not rent an airline simulator in the US because maintenace would know immediately that something wasn't right. You would either have to have a military simulator under military control or a country who operates the 757/767 within their fleet who would participate in the training.

The use of the 757/767 was ingenious because the controls and operation are identical. They are so identical (as Boeing planned) that just one type rating ride allows you both type ratings. The reason that this was so ingenious is that all airlines were picked that used 757/767 so that in case an aircraft was substituted for a mechanical malfunction it would be either a 757 or a 767.

Clearly, at the time, this "distinguished pilot" felt it was a trivial matter for a minimally-trained pilot to achieve speeds in excess of 560mph, and perform the required maneuvers needed to impact the tower.


www.fantasticforum.com...

Posted by johnlear on 08-25-2004 08:00 PM:
The skill was then in flying a heavy jetliner at 605 mph and 600 feet above the ground keeping the heading within plus or minus 1 degree or less.

He repeats his support that the speeds and altitude were possible.


Mr. Lear goes on to discuss rather high air speed quite often in the discussion, and never once mentions the supposed impossibility of such high speed at low altitude.

Perhaps you should spend a little time vetting your sources. Those posts were quickly located via a rather simple search parameter using Google.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The Sandia test of an F-4 has often been cited as some kind of counter-example, except that the analogy is obviously flawed. It was attached to a railroad frame and run at 500 mph into a nuclear-resistant, concrete barricade, which caused it to blast apart into millions of tiny pieces.

The rail was used to ensure the aircraft hit the target, the F-4 was under it's own propulsion.

Since a concrete barricade is many-magnitudes more dense than the exterior of the WTC towers, we can expect the 9/11 aircraft to penetrate with much more ease, and the momentum of the tail-section to continue unhindered more so than an F-4 striking reinforced concrete.

reply to post by JimFetzer


It was me that brought up the paint fleck you CLAIM a softer object CANNOT damage a harder object, you say the plane would hit the building velocity would drop to zero thats the WHOLE BASIS of your claim.

Well HOW can a fleck of paint weighing a FRACTION of a gram cause any damage at all to the space shuttle window, according to you it would just splatter, but due to the ENERGY of the collision something YOU obviously CAN'T understand it can cause damage.

The energy in the paint fleck was worked out to be similar to a 400lb traveling at 60 mph so if you want to try and catch that to prove us wrong I am sure with some effort we can arrange it, it would make a good youtube video that!

I mean the roadrunner does that to the coyote all the time and he surrvives beep beep

Not a chance. Here is a nice discussion from wemustknow.net... where I do not buy Dimitri's theory about the use of three 150-kt nukes beneath the towers but his discussion of the impossibility of an entry of a Boeing 767 is excellent:

wemustknow.net...

GM: Please tell me briefly how according to the science of physics that it is absolutely impossible for a jumbo-jet to penetrate the frame of the former World Trade Center.

DK: Many people naively think that the WTC facades were made from huge panes of glass – because the “planes” shown in 9/11 footage appear to penetrate in too easily – without even reducing their speed upon the impact. However, it is not so simple in reality. In reality the facades of the Twin Towers were made from densely positioned thick steel perimeter columns.

WTC-core-and-exteriour-columns-300x199.jpg (see site)
Core- and perimeter columns of the WTC Twin Towers

There were 59 of such columns on each of the 4 facades and these columns were positioned every one meter from one other. Each column represented a hollow tube square in cross-section. Each of the four walls of such perimeter column was as thick as the front armor of a tank.

Do you think that an aluminum plane could penetrate steel thick as tank’s front armor? Try to be realistic… Yes, intuitively it might appear to some people that a massive, fast-flying aircraft, even though it is made from aluminum, has a lot of kinetic energy to penetrate steel. But this is a very wrong perception. Your intuition badly cheats you in this particular case. Aluminum can not penetrate steel irrespectively of its mass and its speed. Because if it were so simple then artillery armor-piercing shells would be made from aluminum. However, anti-tank rounds are not made from it. They are made from Wolfram (Tungsten) or from Depleted Uranium. Because either one of these materials is harder than steel.

WTS-Tower-steel-structure1-292x300.jpg (see site)
Official diagram of the Twin Towers’ structure

I will try to illustrate this to you. From the point of physics it does not matter – if a moving car A hits a stationary car B, or, vice versa – a moving car B hits a stationary car A. As long as we are talking about the speed of the moving car relative to the stationary car and the speed is the same, the physics of the process is the same. From the point of view of physics it is the same if the moving plane hits stationary Twin Tower or some fabulous giant took the Twin Tower and hits with it (as it were a huge baseball bat) a stationary plane – the physics of this process is the same.

Now we move further. Let’s imagine that we have a plastic swatter to kill flies. And we hit a fly with the swatter at an impact speed of 1 meter per second. It will flatten the fly. Now we increase the speed of the swatter to 10 meters per second and hit the fly – it will again flatten the fly. We increase the speed of the swatter to 100 meters per second and hit the fly – it will again flatten the fly. And even if we increase the speed to 1000 meters per second or to any other speed, the result will be the same – the hit of the swatter will flatten the fly. I think it is very obvious.

Now, we imagine that the swatter now is stationary and the fly is attempting to “penetrate” it by flying into it. If the fly hit the swatter at the speed of 1 meter per second what will happen? Apparently the fly will be flattened without being able to penetrate the plastic swatter (because it does not matter if the moving swatter hits a stationary fly or the moving fly hits a stationary swatter – the physics of this process is the same). If the fly increases the speed to 10 meters per second? The result is the same. 100 meters per second? The same. 1000 meters per second? The same: the fly will be flattened without being able to penetrate the plastic swatter irrespective of the speed of impact.

The very same consideration is applicable to the aluminum planes hitting the enormously strong steel Twin Tower boasting its outer skin as strong as the front armor of a tank. An empty aluminum plane would be flattened on impact without being able to penetrate the Tower and the flattened plane will fall back to sidewalks.

Add here an additional logical confirmation of what I have said. Imagine that a certain bridge collapses killing people on the bridge and under the bridge. Would you see an architect of the bridge arrested and brought before the court of law? No doubt. Have you seen an architect of the Twin Towers arrested and brought tried for his failure to provide an adequate strength to his construction? No. Now you get the point. The WTC architect is not guilty. Neither in a sense that aluminum planes could penetrate his steel building, nor in a sense that fires caused by kerosene could collapse his steel building. The architect is clearly innocent because neither of the two suggestions has taken place in reality: the aluminum planes have never penetrated the Twin Towers and “fires” did not cause the Twin Towers to collapse. Therefore there is no reason to arrest and try the architect.

reply to post by mister.old.school

I'm sorry, wmd-2008, but you have a diminished understanding of these things. See my last post.

i]reply to post by wmd_2008

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Not a chance.

That's the best you can do when shown that your primary expert source mentioned here, John Lear, clearly believed that speeds in excess of 560mph, at low altitude, were possible prior to his involvement with "9/11 Truth" concepts and suppositions?

Perhaps your status as "scholar" among the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" is in doubt as well? One would hope that "scholars" would be more concerned with truth than ramblings.

I asked John about this and he told me he had not ever considered the 'no plane'
theory' until 2006 when he was affected by something that provoked him to give
it more thought. "Now", he wrote to me, "I am an unrepentant, died in the wool,
unashamed, unapologetic 'noplaner'."

Now the reality is that it doesn't matter what he thought or wrote in the past. I've
provided a copy of his affidavit in a 9/11 lawsuit in which he offered (what I take
to be) impeccable arguments that explain why no Boeing 767 could have flown at
560 mph at 700-1,000 feet altitude.

Either you can defeat them or you can't. I could care less what John Lear might
have thought at one point in time or another. If he has at different times advance
inconsistent arguments, then they cannot both have been true. It is obvious to me
that those in his affidavit are true.

Defeat them if you can or admit you are wrong, if you have the intellectual integrity.

reply to post by mister.old.school

What's the matter with you, mister.old.school? Have you lost your marbles?
Pilots for 9/11 Truth has also confirmed that the plane shown in the videos
was traveling at am impossible speed. You are either ignorant or deceptive.
I can't imagine why anyone would take you seriously after stunts like these.

reply to post by mister.old.school