Thursday, October 26, 2006

9/11 TV-Fakery... Hunt the Boeing (WTC) 2: Pythagoras Exposes Phantom Flight UA175 as a Hoax


It appears that the newer source of the "Jim Friedl" audio has more to offer than meets the ear. In this
newly released video, we are presented with an uninterrupted “live” video feed, which provides us with a reverse version of the magic trick "Now you see it... Now you don't."

At 7:38 of this video, the feed is switched to a different helicopter. A few seconds later, FOX commentator Jim Ryan describes the image from the video feed as "the picture from our chopper now arriving at the scene." This comment seems to validate that this is indeed the same video that was broadcast “live” by WNYW FOX5 on 9/11/01, since the picture correlates with the commentary. In what I referred to in my previous article as the "
original source," the video feed never switches to this helicopter (this would have occurred approximately 2:44 into that video).

Although this matching commentary does not necessarily prove that this newly released video is exactly what was broadcast “live” by WNYW FOX5 on 9/11/01, it does seem to prove that this is the feed that Jim Ryan was looking at as he was commentating.


The objective of this article is to determine whether or not a plane would be clearly visible in any frame prior to its appearance in frame 14269 (see Reference Frames below), approximately 7 minutes and 55 seconds into the aforementioned video.

In order to achieve this objective, it is necessary to determine two major elements for visibility:

1.) The observable size of the “plane” at any given zoom factor
2.) The relative location of the “plane” inside or outside the boundaries of any given frame


I will begin my analysis of this video at the 7:38 runtime marker. My first observation relates to speed of the "arriving" chopper. I will offer a crude guess of no more than a 10mph cruising speed on the towers at the moment of the switched feed, based on viewing the land and river directly below the chopper. However, this chopper is not moving directly towards the scene at all. As a matter of fact, after the first zoom-in, it can clearly be observed to be moving sideways as well. Due to this observation, I have chosen to deem the effect of the camera’s closing rate to be negligible.

Before anyone considers challenging my decision to ignore this factor in my calculations, please consider that at this closing rate and from this distance (approximately 6.5 miles from the tower), it would take well over an hour for the chopper to truly “arrive at the scene,” and that the longest time span I have used in any of my calculations is 6.1 seconds.

In other words, if you were standing 6.5 miles away from WTC2 on that day, and you jogged toward it for 6 seconds, how much bigger do you think it would look from your new vantage point, about 50ft closer?

*Hint: it would seem around 1/8th of 1% larger. Now apply that to 0.625in, and you will then understand why I have deemed it negligible.

Analysis: Reference Frames

For clarity, I will present three critical frames for future reference, two of which I will repeatedly be referring to as Zoom1 and Zoom3 (Zoom 2 is an intermediate zoom between Zoom1 and Zoom3, which offers no real benefit regarding the objective of this analysis). I have chosen to call the third critical frame “Eclipse,” because this is the final frame before the nose of the “plane” disappears behind the south corner of WTC2, just prior to “impact.”

url not found

Please note the frame numbers and run times associated with Zoom1, Zoom3, and Eclipse - as these become critical references for the calculations performed throughout the remainder of this article. Please also note that all measurements were recorded using imperial Vernier calipers (model SPI-2000), as applied to printed screenshots which were extracted using VirtualDub software.

All calculations beyond this point have been rigorously verified by Veronica Chapman, to whom I now owe many favors. Please report any errors for review via the provided comment link (beyond those which are attributable to precision measurement and rounding).

Clarification Note: Reference screenshots have been scaled to 70% of their original extracted size to fit the width of this page. From this point forward, all screenshots have been doubled from their original size.

Please keep in mind that all dimensions labeled on these screenshots have been recorded using the original screenshot size, and therefore should not match the size of the image that appears on your monitor (unless you have about a nine inch monitor or an insanely high resolution setting). Although you may arrive at different values than I have, you should find that the ratio of your own measurements to mine will remain consistent.

Analysis: Zoom3 Measurements

url not found

Analysis: Zoom3 Calculations

I have selected the width of WTC1 as a "measuring stick" for the purpose of determining the distance from the south corner of WTC2 to the right edge of the frame in Zoom1. I chose WTC1 rather than WTC2 simply because it is at less of an angle relative to the camera position.

However, it is still at a slight angle, and so we cannot simply use it's known length of 208 ft. This is because planes (dimensional planes, not Boeings) of objects appear shorter when viewed from any angle that is not direcly perpendicular to them. Using a true length value to measure distances in an auxilary view represents flawed methodology. Since our ultimate goal is to determine as accurately as possible where a fast moving "plane" should appear in Zoom1, we need to address the problem presented by this auxilary view.
url not found

Although there is not a tremendous difference between 206.5 ft an 208 ft, it still compounds to 38 ft/mile. If we had chosen WTC2 and ignored this factor, the error would have been even greater than 38 ft/mile due to the fact that it is at an even greater angle. Due to the high velocities and short time spans we are dealing with in this analysis, I felt it necessary to eliminate every possible source of non-negligible error.

Analysis: Zoom1 Measurements & Calculations

From the calculations above, we can now determine that 1 mile is 25.57 tower widths (5280/206.5). This ratio is a constant from this angle, regardless of zoom factor. After printing out a screenshot of Zoom1, I measured the distance from the right edge of the frame to the south corner (right edge) of WTC2 as being 2.465in.

url not found

My measured width of WTC1 in this frame is 0.09in. Therefore, 1 mile in this frame should scale as 25.57 X 0.09 = 2.3in. This means that the right edge of the frame should be 2.465 / 2.3 = 1.07 miles away from the south corner of WTC2.

If you'd like to verify this, feel free to print Zoom1 and take your own measurements, or measure it on your monitor if you'd prefer. Because we are dealing with ratios, even if your printout/monitor is not the same size as what I am working from, this 25.57 tower widths = 1 mile will hold true.

Analysis: “Plane” Speed

From the graphic in the Zoom3 Measurement section above, I measured the distance between the nose of the plane and the south corner of WTC2 to be exactly 1in. The nose of the plane meets the south corner of WTC2 12 frames later (difference between Zoom3 frame 14269 and Eclipse frame 14281 = 12).

In Zoom3, 1 inch = 330.4ft (206.5 / 0.625). Velocity is equal to distance over time. We've already measured the distance, and the time is easily calculated by counting frames in this 30 frame/s video. 1/30 s/frame X 12 frames = 0.4s. Therefore velocity = 330.4ft / 0.4s = 826 ft/s.

826ft/s X 3600 s/hr / 5280 ft/mile = 563.2mph!

This ludicrous velocity alone should be enough to declare this video as proof of TV-Fakery, especially since this "plane" is supposedly still banking. However, since I have taken the time to perform all of these calculations, I may as well show everyone reading this where this "plane" should have been back in Zoom1.

Analysis: “Plane” Size

Anybody that I haven’t “lost” by this point should comprehend ratios (I hope), so whether we measure pixels or paper, the zoom factor should be simple to explain. My (paper) measurements came out as 0.625in (Zoom3) and .090in (Zoom1) when I measured the width of WTC1.

This yielded a zoom factor (image size ratio) of 6.9444 (0.625 / 0.09). I used this factor to calculate the size of the image we should expect to see in Zoom1 (1/6.9444 = 14.4% of the Zoom3 image size).

Note: One anomaly I have yet to point out is that the “plane” in Zoom3 scales at 144ft, which is 15ft shorter than a B767-200. As this point is irrelevant to the objective of this article, I am simply noting it as a fact.


Due to variance between all purported “plane” speeds, I have decided that the output of my calculations should include where this "plane" should have been seen in a manner which includes a broad range of velocity estimates in addition to the velocity I was able to calculate above.

url not found

With a known drawing scale, it became a relatively easy task to create a velocity chart. Since Zoom1 and Eclipse (when the nose of the "plane" meets the south corner of WTC2) are separated by 183 frames (14281-14098), time is calculated as 183/30 = 6.1s.

Running through the process of how I determined where to draw the line representing 563.2mph:

563.2mph / 3600 s/hr = 0.1564 miles per second
0.1564 mile/s X 6.1s = 0.9543 miles
0.9543 miles X 25.57 tower widths/mile = 24.4 tower widths
Since I measured 1 tower width to be 0.09in,
24.4 tower widths X 0.090 in/tower width = 2.196in

If you are interested in viewing the chart I used to generate the remaining reference lines in the graphic, I have made it available via hyperlink under the reference heading at the end of this article.

Hypothetically, if a plane were visible at the extreme right frame edge of Zoom1, and it's nose were to arrive at the south corner of WTC2 6.1 seconds later, its minimum velocity would be 632mph.

Of course, this entire graphic is hypothetical, since we should all know by now that the image observed in Zoom3 was nothing more than an inserted CGI.


As you observe the graphic above, keep in mind that although my calculations are subject to some small degree of measurement error, I still feel that I am presenting the worst-case scenario (i.e. minimum velocities), due to the fact that this graphic represents a perfectly straight-flying plane, traveling directly perpendicular to the camera's "line of sight." Any other path would result in the "plane" being even closer to WTC than I have presented, for the same reason my measuring stick ended up being less than 208 ft long (angled distances appear shorter).

If any individual wishes to take the time to apply the methods employed in this article using pixel counts rather than paper measurements to achieve more accurate distance measurements, feel free to do so.

Please also note that the scale of the Zoom1 “plane” is actually 14.5% of the size of the Zoom3 “plane” in the green rectangles added at the top left of this graphic, rather than the 14.4% value I calculated in my "Plane" Size analysis. This is only because I exported the screenshot to MS Paint, which only allows scaling by whole percentage values. To achieve the 14.5% value, I doubled the scale of the entire screenshot and then scaled only the “plane” to 29% of its Zoom3 size.


Velocity Reference Line Calculations

Revision History

10/28/06 - 12:45am - Reference screenshots scaled to 70% to fit this page. Original size screenshots available here.

10/28/06 - 11:19pm - Clarification Note added to Reference Frame section.

10/29/06 - 8:45pm - Added LH extension line in Zoom1 Measurements graphic, in line with the south corner of WTC2 (LH extension line missing on previous graphic, LH dimension arrow extented to south corner of WTC1). 2.465in label showing measured value has always been correct - only the LH dimesion arrow was incorrect.

10/30/06 - 8:01am - Corrected WTC1 dimension in Zoom3 Measurements graphic to read 0.075in, as measured (previously erroneously labeled as 0.070in).

10/30/06 - 8:19am - Revision History section added, and revision notes relocated here from main text, so as not to break up the flow of the article.

10/30/06 - 9:54am - "Enhanced" Clarification Note in Reference Frame section.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

9/11 WNYW FOX5 Blooper - "Jim Friedl": Eyewitness or Member of the TV Fakery WESCAM Crew?


After much deliberation and an exhaustive effort to seek out trustworthy voice identification experts and/or linguistic profilers, I have decided to post this article for review by the general public without “expert” verification. Before I get into the details of what I suspect to be a smoking gun which incriminates the mainstream media, I want to be very clear that this analysis depends largely on my opinion regarding voice identification. However, 100% of the relatively small group of people I trusted enough to share this information with prior to this post agree with my opinion. Whether or not you agree this analysis will likewise depend on your own opinions of voice identification after you hear the audio from the source footage I am about to present.

My discovery of this evidence was purely accidental. I was in the process of multitasking, simultaneously reviewing "9/11 - As it Happened” videos for two purposes. My first goal was to ascertain exactly when the first video that showed both the alleged UA175 and the WTC2 “impact hole” was released to the public (still unsure.. 9/12?). My second goal was to amass a list of witnesses who claim to have seen big Boeings flying into the towers, figuring that they would make great candidates for lie detector tests come prosecution time (my favorite lie detector candidate:
Stanley Praimnath).

I’m sure many of you are familiar with at least part of this footage, including the commentary. However, many of these clips end before they get to the dialogue I am about to analyze. The video I am referring to is
here. I found it at Killtown’s “2nd Hit" webpage (video group 2, far right).


In the first 2 ½ minutes of this video, anchorman Jim Ryan (WNYW in NY) is interviewing an alleged eyewitness “Jim Friedl,” who supposedly saw the first big Boeing “bank sharply” and then “fly directly” into WTC1, from a vantage point somewhere in Hoboken, NJ.

Jim Ryan then goes on to summarize the previous interview until 3:02 of the video, at which time we observe the fireball from the alleged second plane impact.

Nine seconds later, at 3:11 of the video, “Jim Friedl” appears to still be on the air, asking “Was that a plane?” Thirteen seconds after that, he again pipes up, saying “Oh, my God!”

Nothing unusual so far here… until seventeen seconds later at 3:41 of the video, when a man speaks into a radio, saying the following: “[Grade] 9, Chopper 5… Is anybody on?”

This is what immediately caught my attention. Although there is some distortion due to the fact that this man was speaking into a radio, his voice sounded much the same as the voice of “Jim Friedl,” the same “witness” they had just interviewed and was still on the line 17 seconds earlier.

Notice how quickly the chopper radio call is faded out. The fact that it was faded out at all proves that this voice came from an incoming feed to the studio, meaning that it cannot be claimed that this voice came from inside the studio.

Furthermore, notice that there are no audible “clicks” of any kind that would indicate either the termination of the “Jim Friedl” phone connection or the initiation of any new audio connection from which the chopper radio call may have been picked up.

As if this weren’t suspicious enough, pay attention to the reaction of Lyn Brown (Jim Ryan’s female co-anchor) immediately after the radio communication. Was that “mmph” an attempt to retroactively cover up a FOX blooper? Or was it the equivalent of “Oh, my God… did we ever just screw up”

On this point, perhaps I need to point something out. There is another source of this audio on YouTube which has a different video feed and begins 4:56 prior to the video which I was analyzing and have linked to above.

This new source of audio, with a completely different video feed, was posted to YouTube on October 3, 2006. In
this new video, I counted a remarkable nine “mmph”s from Lyn in a span of 1:38 (3:10-4:48). Either Jim Ryan is poking her with a sharp stick during that time or she briefly developed a toned down variety of Tourette Syndrome. However, over the next 4 minutes, she only gives us two “mmph”s, once in response to Jim Ryan saying “My goodness,” and her most emphatic of all “mmph”s after “Jim Friedl” radios to Chopper 5.

Regardless of whether or not the audio has been altered in this newly released video, my argument remains unchanged. If the voice of the man communicating with Chopper 5 is indeed still “Jim Friedl,” this would add even further to proof of involvement of the mainstream media in the crimes of 9/11.

Not only did they produce images of fake planes that were never there; they would also have produced fake eyewitnesses!

Form Your Own Opinion

Under the Reference heading at the end of this article, I have included links to help aid you in forming your own opinion. I have created a timeline that ties every point I have referenced from the original source file to a specific time, so that you can find it more easily. Also, there are three files which isolate “Jim’s” voice from critical points in the audio. I highly recommend the use of headphones during all audio review.

Questions About “Jim Friedl”

Even if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that “Jim Friedl” was in direct radio contact with Chopper 5, there is still much left to debate.

First of all, what was Chopper 5? Was it FOX 5’s only chopper, thus aptly named? Was it a military chopper? Could it have been a FEMA chopper?

Secondly, where was “Jim Friedl,” and why did he have so many means of communication at his disposal? 53 seconds into the video, we hear a phone ring. This seems to distract “Jim,” causing him to stop and restart his sentence at the word “directly.” If you turn your volume up and listen closely, you will hear a second phone ringing with a slightly higher pitch in the background. Anyone who has ever had more than one phone connected to the same line should be able to attest to the fact that they don’t always ring in perfect harmony. Often times, the rings are staggered. Notice the higher pitched phone is still ringing after the phone closest to “Jim” stops.

So let’s see. Two phones on the same line plus the cell phone he was using for the interview plus the radio he needed to communicate with the chopper. Does it sound like “Jim Friedl” was just an ordinary citizen at home in Hoboken?

If that was “Jim” talking to Chopper 5, my guess is that he had a bird’s eye view of the entire scene. This is reinforced by the fact that it would have been impossible for him to have seen “debris flying out the other side,” since “the other side” is the backside from Hoboken. If he can really see through buildings, he and Stanley Praimnath should get together and compare superpowers. Based on the two land line phones, he was most likely either indoors or on a balcony. Having two phones attached to the same line is extremely rare in office buildings, so I’m guessing he was either in an apartment building or a hotel room. Having two phones in one apartment also seems somewhat rare, so I definitely lean toward a large hotel room, possibly a suite.

Finally, who was “Jim Friedl?” Well, if he lied about seeing a large plane hit WTC1, and he lied about being in Hoboken, and he was most likely in contact with the chopper that fed us the live image with the inserted CGI, do you really think he’d tell the truth about his name?

He identifies himself as Grade 9 when he hails Chopper 5. This could open up speculation of military association (E9 Grade is the pay scale for a Sergeant Major or Command Sergeant Major in the Army), which would lead to speculation of the chopper also being military. It could also be a call sign he chose for himself if he worked for either a media or FEMA chopper crew.

I’m no linguistic profiler or anything, but that won't stop me from coming to these two basic conclusions based on the audio:

1.) His accent does not sound like that of a native NY/NJ resident.
2.) His diction indicates to me that he is well educated.

An "expert" linguistic profiler should be able to conclude much more than I have, certainly not as detailed as his home address, but possibly as detailed as his home state and his educational background.

As far as any additional task that “Jim Friedl” may have performed in the operation (besides providing a fake eyewitness account), I couldn’t even begin to speculate as to what he might have been doing in the 37 seconds between the instant he finished the interview and the instant of detonation of the explosions inside WTC2, because I honestly have no idea. In order to determine that, we would need answers to at least some of the many questions I’ve raised here for debate.


To summarize my beliefs, “Jim Friedl” is lying in this eyewitness interview. He lied about both where he was and what he saw. Regardless of whether he is a media, military or some other type of government employee, he was a part of the 9/11 operation. Everybody in that studio had to know that after hearing that call to Chopper 5. The media was also in on the 9/11 operation. Their job was to sell us on the fake planes and to sell us stories from fake eyewitnesses… like “Jim Friedl.”


There is a tremendous amount of evidence very similar to this instance that anyone can extract from all of these “As it Happened” videos. Once you are able to accept that no big Boeings crashed anywhere on 9/11/01, all of this evidence suddenly becomes obvious, as if someone has lifted a fog from in front of your eyes and removed plugs from your ears.

Phony witnesses are exposed. Media reporters can clearly be heard to manipulate our interpretation of the day’s events. There is a veritable treasure trove of evidence out there just waiting to be seen and heard with “more intelligent” eyes and ears than we had five years ago.

I encourage you all to go out and find it. This article is merely one example. There are plenty of “Jim Friedl’s” and Stanley Praimnath’s out there just waiting to be discovered.

The only rebuttal being offered against no big Boeings is eyewitness testimony. This is because there is no possible scientific rebuttal. Scientific rebuttal is impossible because unlike the laws of societies, the Laws of Physics can be neither abolished nor changed.

When someone offers an eyewitness as rebuttal, make sure you thank them for providing you with a new lead. If you are near Manhattan, you can travel to where these witnesses claim to have been and evaluate whether they could have seen what they say they did.

Is there really a fire escape platform outside the 14th floor at the corner of Hudson & Franklin that “
Rosa Cordona Rivera” could have been standing on, smoking a cigarette? If so, what was her view like?

Print out a screenshots from any of these
2nd hit videos and attempt to determine where these cameramen were standing. Were they inside a building? Were they on a rooftop? Were they inside St. Paul’s Chapel? Look at these videos more closely and ask yourselves why these people were filming at all, if not for the sole purpose of providing footage to later insert a CGI plane. Place yourself in the shoes of this person and ask yourself if your first instinct after hearing a plane above and behind you (while filming WTC1 from a pointless angle) would have been to zoom out and center your camera on WTC2. Or do you think you may have chosen to look up instead?

Again, once you realize that all of these videos have been faked, you can clearly see exactly how highly improbable, if not downright impossible, the circumstances behind these videos are. It becomes almost comical when you begin imagine how
these guys could have had the presence of mind to detect and subsequently film an incoming plane, yet not even think to say a word to each other about it until more than a second after it hits WTC2?

I could go on and on. But I wouldn’t want to be greedy and deprive all of you of your own piece of the huge mass of evidence awaiting discovery.

I highly recommend the following sites to start you on your own personal path to 9/11 truth:

Introduction to 911 research
Killtown's: Questioning the 9/11 attacks...
The Webfairy
No More Games • Net




Please note that the sound you hear in the middle of "Grade 9, Chopper 5. Is anybody on?" has not been added to these audio excerpts. This sound is the voice of Jim Ryan. When removed from the context of the surrounding audio, Jim Ryan's voice becomes much harder for a listener to tune out. The only audio modification performed in these files was a volume control adjustment to compensate for the studio technician's immediate fade-out of the "chopper call" incoming feed.


Fox Blooper Timeline