Saturday, December 23, 2006

9/11 TV-Fakery: Pinocchio - Part III: Screwing Up the Cover-Up of the Cover-Up of the Screw-Up

Introduction – The “Venus Plane Trap”

One of the problems that all of the post production video editors faced when inserting the “nose-out” into all of these videos is that they also had to make it “go away.” It was easy enough for them to make it appear as though 50+ feet of fuselage came out fully-intact from the other side, but to make it “disappear” required a little more creativity.

That’s right folks, Pinocchio has returned to expound upon yet another detail of the post-production fakery: The “Venus Plane Trap.”

The “Venus Plane Trap" was originally present only in the “Gamma Press” post-production video. This video can be viewed
here.

Although I've already referred to this video in Part II of the Pinocchio series, I only covered my analysis of the actual protrusion ("nose-out") at that time. In an effort to keep the article short, I decided to save my "issues" with the fireball for a later time.

Analysis – The "Venus Plane Trap"

Picking up where I left off, the last frame of this video that I presented in Part II was frame 84. This is essentially the peak of Pinocchio’s prominence in this video:




After this point of the video clip, Pinocchio is “swallowed” by a bright yellow parabola of Flame-Fakery that I have dubbed the “Venus Plane Trap.” Let’s take a look at a few frames of this Flame-Fakery, shall we?

From frames 92 through 101, it is obvious to see the difference between the actual explosion and the inserted Flame-Fakery:


This theory is easily verified by establishing the absence of the Venus Plane Trap in most of the other videos that have been released. However, before I do that, I want to point out another aspect of this video that proves this portion of the fireball is 2-dimensional.

Analysis – Spatial Ambiguity

Because I prefer to use numbers that are the least favorable to my theories, I will maintain my estimate from Part II that the side of the “fuselage” that is closest to the corner is 10 feet away from it. I will make this assumption in spite of this picture, which clearly shows (amongst other things) that it would have had to be closer than that.


In order for the “Venus Plane Trap” to obscure the “fuselage” from the vantage point of the camera, it would obviously have to be closer to the corner than the “fuselage,” even at the tip of the protrusion.

So how can a fireball that supposedly originated from inside the towers obscure a “plane” that is no farther than 10 feet away from the corner, yet NOT obscure the darker (real) fireball that has originated from just inside the corner? No matter how bright this fireball is, it is certainly not transparent. The fact that we can still see the darker fireball which is clearly coming from the north face indicates that it would be closer to the camera than the bright yellow “Venus Plane Trap.”

If the tip of the protrusion is no farther than 18 feet from the corner (10ft away + 8ft fuselage radius), how wide do you suppose this “Venus Plane Trap” would have to be at the “exit face” for its “mouth” to be swallowing the fuselage tip over 50 feet away? Surely larger than 18 feet, wouldn’t you think?

The impossibility of this phenomenon has but one clear explanation: The “Venus Plane Trap” must be a 2-dimensional fake fireball that was inserted during the post-production editing process.

Analysis – Simplifying to 3 Frames

This “Gamma Press” video has a frame rate of 25 frames/second. The “fuselage” emerges from the “exit face in frame 80. By frame 87, the fake flame has advanced farther than the real flame. At the latest, the “Venus Plane Trap” reaches the plane of the south face of WTC1 by frame 98.

This means that when we go looking for the Venus Plane trap in other videos, it should be clearly visible between 0.28 and 0.72 seconds after the first breach of WTC’s north face (7f / 25f/s = 0.28,18f / 25f/s = 0.72).

The screenshots I will be presenting in the next section are taken from some of the earliest replays we were shown. Of course, I would have preferred to use only “live” video, but for some reason, there doesn't appear to be a single nationally broacast “live” angle that provides a view of either the “impact” face or the “exit” face (hmmm).

In each set, the screenshot on the top left will represent the first frame in which the north face has been breached, the bottom screenshot depicts what the fireball looks like 0.28 seconds after the breach, and the screenshot on the top right will represent what is happening 0.72 seconds after the breach.

What we’ll be looking for in these frames is consistency with what we see here:


Analysis – A Look at Live Shots, Replays, and Early Videos

If the Venus Plane Trap were real, we would expect to be able to clearly differentiate between the bright yellow fireball and the rest of the explosion after 0.72 seconds. The most telling frame will be after 0.28 seconds, which is why I have chosen to blow it up to 2x. In this frame, we should also still be able to see the “nose-out” from virtually any angle.

As it Happened CBS Part 2

This CBS replay is very distant, but I can't see the "nose-out" or the lighter color of the "Venus Plane Trap." If anything, the north face fireball appears to be darker than the fireball exiting the east (left hand) face. We need to get closer...

WPIX Part 1

This is a much clearer view. Once again, I don't see a "nose-out" or a "dust snail." The "Venus Plane Trap" doesn't appear to be present either, and the fireball colors look uniform.

CNBC

Pretty much the same as WPIX, only lower resolution.

CNN Exclusive


The frames in this video seem to be all messed up. Some are duplicated, and some seem to be skipped. There must be more skipped frames than duplicate frames, because the entire event occurs too quickly. Notice how advanced the entire fireball is after only 0.72 seconds. Once again, the exit fireball appears darker on the north face. There appears to be a "nose-out," but I can't see a "Venus Plane Trap."

Another oddity in this video is the crooked foreground building, with a higher resolution on its right side than its left. I'm already covering plenty of ground in this article without going into that, so I'll stop at just mentioning it.

Evan Fairbanks


This is the clearest view yet of the "nose-out," yet once again, the "Venus Plane Trap" fails to make an appearance. Fireball coloration appears close to being uniform on both faces.

Analysis - Summary of Comparisons

The "Gamma Press" / KTLA footage shows the clearest view of both the "nose-out" and the "Venus Plane Trap." In fact, I found no trace of the latter in any other "live," replayed, or early "amateur" video. The closest angle I was able to find was the Evan Fairbanks footage, which shows the "nose-out," but not the "Venus Plane Trap."

Analysis – Identifying the Second Generation Videos

As I pointed out in Pinocchio: Part II, the absence of a hole in the North face of WTC2 proves that what is shown protruding over 50 feet out of this face cannot possibly be a fully-intact nosecone and fuselage.

Given more time to evaluate the scenario, I find it difficult to believe that the perps wouldn’t have realized this obvious problem. In the second generation “wtc2-strike” videos (I believe released by indymedia), they attempt to kill two birds with one video series (in actuality, I’m sure they attempted to fix more than just those 2 elements).

The two main “birds” they needed to address were the physical impossibilities of both the 50+ feet of protruding “plane” and the “Venus Plane Trap.” I believe that “wtc2-strike-7.avi” was specifically created as a preemptive measure for the inevitable day when these physical impossibilities would be pointed out.

When I use the same 3-frame analysis technique as I did in the last section, notice how prominent the "Venus Plane Trap" is in this video:


Notice also how they have magically transformed the “nose-out” into a “dust snail.” They're trying to kill Pinocchio! They worked so hard to cram him in, and now they're trying to give him a makeover. Is anyone in here falling for that trick?

They've chosen to solve their aforementioned "spatial ambiguity" problem by moving the darker fireball to the east, making room for the 3D version of the "Venus Plane Trap." Watch as they "walk it to the east" while we take a look at a critical 10-frame sequence of this obvious forgery:


I’ve dubbed this video “Snail Swallow.” The "Venus Plane Trap" has been brought to life here as well. Seemingly, it notices the "dust snail" next to it and turns its head before swallowing the snail whole.

When looking at this frame-by-frame, it is easy to lose a sense of the speed at which this “dust snail” would have been traveling. This is because (just like the fuselage it is attempting to replace) the "dust snail" clearly isn't anything real.

Remember, they NEEDED to make this new video because at some point, they realized that someone was going to notice that there wasn’t a hole in the exit face of WTC2 to accommodate the exit of a fully-intact fuselage (or any other solid entity).

The only logical alternative to a solid was dust (that cop from Terminator II was busy). In order to make sure we can identify this new “snail form” as dust rather than a solid, they have gone out of their way to create neat little pockets of dust clouds within the overall "fuselage" shape.

The utter absurdity of this video lies in its entire depiction of the “exit scenario.” It is absurd that dust traveling in excess of 300mph would not only maintain its shape, but that it will form neat little "pockets" (with no motion- blur). Was it wearing a dust condom?

All other dust/debris from every other face is being dispersed as it is propelled by explosions, yet this “dust snail” is apparently immune. Wouldn't that dust be pushed eastward along with the fireball that they needed to move? Perhaps it was too busy performing its plane impersonation to be affected by mere explosions?

In addition to this absurdity, the behavior of the fireball is equally unbelievable. The draft force of a real fireball would have acted upon the “dust snail,” pushing it aside and dispersing it at the same time – as opposed to "swallowing it whole."

Conclusion

This video was clearly created to offset the impossible aspects of the “Gamma Press” and KTLA “footage.” This newer video also contains the same premature shadow as the KTLA angle, which spans the entire length of the tower much too early, given that the sun angle relative to this face was 13 degrees:


We should expect to see these carry-over errors, since this is an attempt at forging a forgery. They are unable to correct the errors of the original forgery, since doing that would present inconsistencies, thus invalidating both. Of course, invalidating both generations of these videos is the very purpose of this article.

In summary, with every attempt to cover up these CGI’s, the truth becomes more and more evident. Similarly, with each attempt, the motivation behind their actions also becomes more evident.

The fact that nothing at all hit WTC2 is the one aspect of 9/11 that they are trying to prevent us from finding out about AT ALL COSTS, because it exposes the most lethal weapon they have at their disposal: the mainstream media.

The value of this weapon is exemplified by how much time, money, and effort they have expended in their attempts to “undo” the single FOX blooper video captured by Chopper 5.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great article. They're sinking in their own lies like quicksand.

I agree 100% with the TV fakery, but I'm wondering what you think produced the entry hole and fireball?

GW said...

I was wondering the same thing as anonymous here about your answer to the plane shaped holes in the towers. My suspicion is preplaced charges at the proper points along the inside of the outer steel perimeter columns, although some cutting explosives would seem to have been used (some columns appeared to bend inward or outward at the gash faces, but most appeared sheared off). I had an absurd idea that the towers may have been hit with A-3 Sky Warriors (proposed by Jim Fetzer {that I read, "Scholars for 9-11 Truth" I think, claimed A-3 hit pentagon that is} among others), and that they entered at just the right timing as these charges on the outer columns went off. After reading your articles (and others), I feel exhorbitently foolish for even thinking such an idea would have been feasible. The fireball too may be from a seperate source than the initial implosion of the "impact face" of WTC2.
I am also wondering your take on WTC1 "impact face", Naudet flying pig (whazit), Pentagon five (now more frames) frame vidoes, and Shanksville holes and ordinance plume pictures, and the true fate of the original "highjackers" and "plane passengers", fictitious flight paths, etc. These questions have been burning in my brain for several years now, I hope you have answers to some of them, although I realize your series here tackles only the WTC2 CGI strike videos.

StillDiggin said...

GW,

I realize it's Christmas, but that list of questions is too much for me to wrap up in one sitting.

I only began researching 9/11 four months ago, and although I have opinions on all of the aspects you mentioned, I have yet to subject these opinions to a complete logical analysis.

Until such time as I am able to conduct these analyses, I prefer not to share my preliminary opinions on this site.

While I ask for your patience with regard to answers, please allow me to correct a couple of aspects with regard to your questions:

First of all, I have yet to see any images of bent beams at WTC2. As far as I am aware, only WTC1 displayed bent beams.

Regardless of what element of the NYC attacks I analyze, I am always careful to resist the natural tendency to group the towers together.

Secondly, I disagree with your terminology when you state that the steel beams appear to have been "sheared off." Pardon the nitpicking, but the term "shear" is too general of a term for my taste.

Without going into too much detail about what I mean by that, I'll do my best to provide the "short version" of why I prefer the terminology: "cleanly severed" or even better, "cleanly removed."

Conventional metal shear, especially with beams this size, involves both bending and tearing of material in the immediate area of separation.

Even in the case of the few bent beams at WTC1, the ends of those beams have been "cleanly removed."

I do plan on releasing a steel beam analysis article after I am done with the "eyewitnesses."

If you want to get a sense of how far away from that I may be, feel free to peruse the partial list of "eyewitnesses" I have provided to Coffinman:

http://www.coffinman.co.uk/perps.htm

Anonymous said...

I hadn't really given it much thought before, but I suppose they could have pre-cut the scar into the building before the attacks so that it was really already formed before the attacks. (Scott Forbes? said there was all sorts of "cabling upgrades and construction noises.)

Then when the show started, they could simply "open" the scar like taking out a piece of a jigsaw puzzle.

I'm not saying that's what happened but it's just a thought I had now.

Really great article, SD. Merry Christmas.

Fred

GW said...

Thanks SD, Merry Christmas and all, I didn't mean to impose too much upon you. My terminology towards the phenomenom discussed here is slack because I am not an engineer or physicist (I am a 4 year degree microbiologist). You are doing great work, please continue your analysis so that us true non-believers in the 'official story' (and 'truthlings' versions) can learn the real truth about these events, it could be very important in the future to counteract the Perps plans (pardon the borrowed term). I am much more convinced now that 9-11 TV Fakery is absolutely real, and up until reading your stuff I wouldn't have thought to separate the towers as un-identical orchestrations.

StillDiggin said...

Fred,

Thanks for helping me pinpoint the day that I first began analyzing the WTC2 impact.

On September 21, 2006 (just over a month into my overall research), I began my scrutiny of NPT.

If anyone is interested in the evolution of my current perspective, feel free to walk through the learning curve I went through starting at the bottom of page 2 in the following breakfornews forum:

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=515

(You may notice a striking similarity between Fred's last comment and my first post in that thread.)

This was a true turning point for my research, since after (eventually) realizing the validity of NPT, I was able to avoid wasting time researching the many purely fictional elements of OGCT that I mention in the afterword of my first article on this site (http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/10/911-wnyw-fox5-blooper-jim-friedl.html).

Anonymous said...

Hi SD, this is a bit off-topic and I know it's not your primary research interest, but check out part 2 of the 911 Octopus and let me know what you think, or link to it if you like it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1439692165433909308&hl=en


Thanks,

Fred

BTW, Now you've got me staring at fireballs.

StillDiggin said...

Fred,

I'm not sure where you're getting your material from, but I'm having trouble digesting it.

I see no evidence that the "jelly car" was anywhere near ground zero. Where did you get this footage from?

Why is the cameraman in that clip suddenly following a different truck? What street was this car on?

What was the date of this press conference with Rummy and Myers, and where can we view it in its entirety?

Finally, where did you obtain the cartoon of the "lasers" mounted on an "Air Force" plane?

The fixed laser on the roof is hilarious - so as long as you can aim your entire plane directly at a target, you can toast it?

Hell, one of the "green beams" coming out of the cartoon "nose contraption" isn't even coming from the "lens."

Probably not the kind of feedback you were looking for - but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

Anonymous said...

Great post StillDiggin'. Your are peeling back the onion on much of the fakery. Many have missed the forgery of the fireballs. Thanks for your efforts. Keep diggin'.
-John Gault

Anonymous said...

I am sorry. This is confusing to me. I do not disagree at all. Can you explain just what in the hell happened, in your opinion? Explosions? Please do not take this as a slam on your explanation. I am just slow. Thanks

Anonymous said...

Hi SD,

The "jelly car" is from some footage posted to Google that is supposedly from September 12, 2001. 9/11 Ground Zero: September 12, 2001 0900 hours
... throughout the world as Ground Zero. The scene resembled that ...
Chesca Media Group LLC - 4 min - Nov 12, 2005

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6499314984870422378&q=ground+zero

As far as I can tell, the guy is walking around with a camcorder taking short clips of various scenes. I think that Odd Lot Trading store is still there, so we could figure out exactly where the car is. I know I've been in that location a few times before in Lower Manhattan, and if memory serves me correct it's about 2-3 blocks from GZ. (I want to say it's SE from GZ, but I'm not sure. Next time I'm down that way I can walk around and find the exact spot.)

Press conference with Rummy and Myers is Aug 09 2002 and transcript is here: http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3581, not sure where you can view it, but you can read it straight from the DOD.

The Air Force cartoon is straight from the Air Force's Directed Energy Directorate, as well as the rest of the Air Force laser footage. http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/Gallery/ Directed Energy Video
A video overview of the Directed Energy Directorate. 9 minutes and 9 seconds long.

Why are you making fun of cartoon planes? They're a staple of covert operations, as we both know!

Anyway, I didn't make the plane cartoon, it's an "official" plane cartoon. And don't tell me you think that all weapons systems are well-designed.

The stuff levitating and behaving weirdly is from the video The Hutchison Effect which I first saw posted from Coffinman.

[The laser plane exists, btw, I talked to someone at Boeing who built it. I think they use the fixed(?) laser to point at a mirror somewhere far away which targets the target. You've got airborne laser sources that are not doing targeting, merely lighting up mirrors. I don't have the resources to try to improve the artist's conception of their various weapons platforms.]

Anyway, those are my sources. What's creating the trouble for you in digesting the material? How can I make it better? That's the kind of feedback I'm looking for.

Also, the link to the myspace page in your new story seems to be dead.

Thanks,

Fred

Anonymous said...

I went back and watched the GZ clip again, and the details on Google say "Church Street" (for the whole clip). From looking it, it seems like the whole thing is taking place at about the same time (9 am) with the camera man walking around turning his camera on and off. I think the car was probably within a block or so of GZ probably on Church St. You may have a better feeling than I do of the streets there and can probably tell just from watching the clip in context.

Thanks,

Fred

StillDiggin said...

Fred,

FYI, I found more of the press conference here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13129.htm

There is also much more on exotic weaponry in this video. While I was waiting, I did a google search based on the cast on Rumsfeld's hand that I noticed in your video, which helped me to find this video.

He had surgery on his thumb in June, 2002, so this was a pre-Iraq press conference (also stated in the video).

What I was having trouble digesting was the imagery without the explanation. I highly recommend using additional portions of the linked video, since they do an excellent job of detailing the capabilities of various exotic weapon systems.

With regard to the "jelly car" segments, there are at least 2 streets being filmed that aren't Church Street.

The remains of outer beams of either tower would not have been visible looking south from Church Street. That shot had to be from farther west, maybe Broadway?

The other street is an east-west street, as evidenced by the shadows. I figured it was either early morning or late afternoon based on the length of the shadows, so 9:00 am makes sense.

The "jelly car" was on a north-south street, but there wasn't enough continuity in the clip for me to identify the street.

My biggest problem was with the cartoon plane. My issue with this imagery is that somebody somewhere is going to associate that image with the "bright flash" that Dave vonKleist tries to distract us with in his video.

Then we'll all have to endure In Plane Sight II, where Dave will be asking us to pay close attention to the bathroom window of the fake plane.

Finally, in my opinion, showing the Hutchison Effect clips without also taking the time to explain how it could be applied to the towers will only confuse people.

If you truly believe this to be a viable theory, I would suggest that you dedicate an entirely separate video on that topic only.

I'll have to check on that MySpace link. I certainly hope it's gone, but if you want to read it, I saved the page before I posted my article.

Most of it should still be at the 911blogger link I provided. If I can get that blog to "disappear" as well, all the better.

Anonymous said...

Hi SD,

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure you're watching the latest verion of the video I have up (which still isn't finished). I've put in titles which explain a lot of what is going on. They flash by fast, but I'll get that fixed later.

Anyway, especially on stuff like the Hutchison Effect clips I explain that "metals fracture are room teperature", and that sort of thing. I'll add in some of that discussion with Colonel Alexander when he explains some of the different types of weapons.

Some of the effects we see look scalar to me, like the car having been flipped. Since the technology doesn't exist "officially" I'm not sure what the best way to introduce it is. There are longer, more boring discussions with Physicists that describe it, but that would probably be beyond the scope of anything I want to do. I think with some more subtitles explaining what we're looking at, and then some of that discussion with the colonel switching back and forth between him and maybe holes in WTC 6, it will come out OK. If you haven't seen the Dec 27 version yet, take a look and see if that hasn't already addressed a lot of your valid gripes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1788093933875366031

I do appreciate your feedback! I am hoping that you were looking at first version of the video, since I've tried to fix a lot of things you're talking about already.

Fred

StillDiggin said...

Fred,

FYI, "Craig's" story is still there. I think I messed up the link somehow. It should be fixed now.

andrewlowewatson said...

Excellent analysis! I have only just now discovered you site, which is unrivalled on the net for design, clarity and content ( sorry that sounds like a review!)
By the way, reference to the Venus Fly Trap, a guy called Thatsshit just posted a video showing that it exits at least ten stories too high.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNS1XcMAmaw

Keep it up - God we need people like you.