As pleased as I am to know that Marcus Icke has read at least two of my articles, I must say that I am disappointed in the strength of his argument against them.
Feel free to read his comments in this apparent rebuttal to my comment that if he can place airplanes in space, he should be able to look straight down on them using the very same software.
In his article, he claims that I have miscalculated an angle by 10 degrees. His claim is based on using Flight Simulator 2004 software to recreate a CBS frame. Using the placement of the Empire State Building relative to the twin towers, he claims that the actual angle of the camera relative to the face of WTC2 is 2 degrees, as opposed to the 11.59 degrees that I had calculated.
Although I agree that the “blooming” he refers to is a potential source of error in my calculation, at an average of 1.6 or so degrees per miscounted pixel, there is no way that “blooming” can account for a 6 pixel miscount.
There are multiple problems with Marcus’ method of arriving at his angle calculation, but before I go there, I’d like to openly ruminate regarding the intent behind his rebuttal.
Although cleverly worded and very accurately mimicking my presentation format, even down to the font selection – there seems to be malicious intent behind the article. If the inciting phraseology behind this intent was “Something has always bothered me about the work of Marcus Icke and Stephan Grossman,” then this type of rebuttal seems a tad overzealous to be a “tit-for-tat” exchange.
What makes this interesting is that Marcus Icke has authored an entire sequence of articles which are linked to under the title “The WTC2 Media Hoax.” To the best of my recollection, it was simply “Ghostgun UA175” a few months ago.
So I will dare to ask this simple question: How can you call something a media hoax without blaming the media?
Here, Marcus Icke states “If a Boeing 767-200 had hit the tower it would have exploded externally and bent the facade inward noticeably while depositing pieces of fuselage, wings, tail fins...etc in the streets below. There would have been some column damage but it would have been virtually impossible for any of the lighter airframe sections to pass completely through the tower.”
Except for the “bend the façade inward noticeably” part, this is true (only the engines and landing gear would have bent anything).
So if we agree, why is Icke on the offensive? Perhaps the answer may be scattered throughout his articles…
Icke Defends the MSM:
At first glance, you might jump to the conclusion that Marcus Icke is referring to the same Media Hoax/TV-Fakery that I’ve been going on and on about. However, if you follow all the links on his “WTC2 Media Hoax” page, he only attacks the amateur footage.
Then, in his rebuttal to my “The Earth is Not Flat” article, he actually DEFENDS the CBS footage – using amateur footage in an attempt to validate his claim (how funny is that?).
The only way that the media can be absolved, given the impossibility of a plane cutting through the south tower, is if they can use holograms as an excuse. To the best of my knowledge, Icke and Grossman are the only two people on this planet who are still spewing hologram stories.
The different flight paths are what rule out holograms, which is exactly why Icke “can’t” look down on all of his planes, because they’re all in different places.
The REAL Media Hoax:
I have no problem with being proven wrong. I’ve been meaning to add a note to my Pinocchio article regarding the “Live CGI Insertion” section. Although it is possible that they could have used Sportvision technology, the Moving Bridge, the Spinning WTC, and other footage clearly shows that bluescreen technology was used to bring 9/11 to our television sets.
So how valid is ANY calculation that relates the location of the Empire State Building to WTC2, after seeing this?
And how accurate do you suppose Icke’s “2 degree” calculation is after you look at a CBS pan-out?
Why is Icke’s WTC7 so far left of the CBS version? Why is every other building out of place? It must be all that “blooming,” right?
Marcus Icke should be commended. Were it not for his work, we may not have had enough information with which to rule out holograms.
Of course he has to defend the MSM footage. Of course he has to attack anyone who presents evidence of TV-Fakery. Even when he (very recently) “questions” the ABC “Live” footage, his language is “Fetzeresque:”
“Unless this stepping effect can be explained as a byproduct of the video recording process or an aerodynamic consequence of high speed flight then the Live Video can not be showing us a real aircraft. It is conceivable that the aircraft has been dubbed live into the video to conceal what was actually there and that this stepping effect could be the hallmark of the video technology that was utilised for this effect.”
Of course, Icke doesn’t date any of his work – which may explain why the second sentence sounds like it was written as a direct result of reading the “Live CGI Insertion” section of my Pinocchio article.
I have to give Marcus Icke credit for trying to be funny. Unfortunately for him, his weak defense of his own stance ends up being funnier than his mockery attempt.
Forgive me if I’ve made assumptions as to what Marcus’ stance actually is, but I’ve yet to see a single conclusion in any of his articles.