tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-363659952024-03-29T05:18:47.909-05:00StillDigginAll logic... all the timeStillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-62123497908612481032007-05-29T23:41:00.000-05:002007-05-30T00:13:57.397-05:00Marcus Icke Writes a Review<span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Introduction:</em></strong></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.<br /><br />Feel free to read his comments in </span><a href="http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/keepdiggin/"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">this apparent rebuttal</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Icke’s Motive:</em></strong><br /></span><br />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 <em>“Something has always bothered me about the work of Marcus Icke and Stephan Grossman,”</em> then this type of rebuttal seems a tad overzealous to be a “tit-for-tat” exchange.<br /><br />What makes this interesting is that Marcus Icke has authored an entire sequence of articles which are linked to under the title “</span><a href="http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">The WTC2 Media Hoax</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">.” To the best of my recollection, it was simply “Ghostgun UA175” a few months ago.<br /><br />So I will dare to ask this simple question: How can you call something a media hoax without blaming the media?<br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/structural/"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, Marcus Icke states <em>“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.”</em><br /><br />Except for the “bend the façade inward noticeably” part, this is true (only the engines and landing gear would have bent anything).<br /><br />So if we agree, why is Icke on the offensive? Perhaps the answer may be scattered throughout his articles…<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Icke Defends the MSM:</em></strong><br /></span><br />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.<br /><br />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?).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>The REAL Media Hoax:</em></strong><br /></span><br />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, </span><a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/mysterious-moving-bridge-near-wtc.html"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">the Moving Bridge</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, </span><a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/spinning-wtc.html"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">the Spinning WTC</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, and other footage clearly shows that bluescreen technology was used to bring 9/11 to our television sets.<br /><br />So how valid is ANY calculation that relates the location of the Empire State Building to WTC2, after seeing this?<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; FONT-SIZE: 130%; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/SpinCity.jpg" /></a> <p></p>And how accurate do you suppose Icke’s “2 degree” calculation is after you look at a CBS pan-out?<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; FONT-SIZE: 130%; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/IckeShot.jpg" /></a></p><p>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?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Conclusion:</em></strong><br /></span><br />Marcus Icke should be commended. Were it not for his work, we may not have had enough information with which to rule out holograms.<br /><br />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:”<br /><br /><em>“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.”</em><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Note:<br /></strong><br />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.</span></p><br /><br /><a></a>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com199tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1991273170714641232007-05-16T14:32:00.000-05:002007-05-19T12:34:34.964-05:00Evan Fairbanks 9/11 Video Fakery: The Monitor Theory<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Introduction:<br /></em></span></strong><br />According to </span><a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E0DC173AF931A15752C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">this New York Times article</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, Evan Fairbanks is a photographer who “had just emerged from Trinity Church, where he was videotaping the Archbishop of Wales.” Of course, later on in the article, he was said to have been “preparing to shoot a speech by the Archbishop of Wales.”<br /><br />I have no idea who Evan Fairbanks is or what he was doing on September 11th. What I do know is that <a href="http://www.livevideo.com/video/F5061FCB97754E80A3AD82C7706A9400/evan-fairbanks-extra-plane.aspx">the “footage” that is said to have come from his camera</a> is not real. I don't know this because of all of these videos I've been analyzing. I know this because I understand Newton's Laws (for more on this, see the afterward).</span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br />The fact that this footage has been faked makes Sarah Boxer’s article a work of fiction – as if we would expect anything else from a member of the mainstream media.<br /></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis:<br /></em></strong></span><br />Even before I considered that no planes hit the towers, I questioned the validity of this screenshot:<br /></span></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/FairbanksScreenshot.jpg" border="0" /></a> First of all, notice that there are TWO planes in this screenshot (the second plane is just above the “FBI agent’s” forearm).<br /><br />At first, I considered two possible explanations for this second plane:<br /><br />1.) That the second plane was added to the footage AFTER it was shown on ABC to confuse us<br />2.) That the second plane was a somehow a reflection<br /><br />However, I was recently reviewing a VHS tape that my sister gave to me, on which she had recorded the evening news on 9/11. After watching this tape, I had to rule out the first possibility - as I’m relatively confident (pun intended) that my sister isn’t a perp.<br /><br />When left with only the second possibility, I was somewhat baffled as to how what looked like a white van could reflect the plane from that angle.<br /><br />Upon closer inspection, I saw something that I’d never seen before in any of the Fairbanks videos that I’d seen before. This discovery caused me to throw out my second possibility, and to create a third.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis: A New Perspective</em></strong><br /></span><br />In the second photo below, I have enlarged the “reflection” and lined it up with the “impact” above it.</p><p><br /></p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/SD_FairbanksTheory.jpg" border="0" /></a><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/SD_FairbanksTheory_Rev2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />I believe that what I used to think was a van, is in actuality some form of a monitor (on a slight angle). </span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/FairbanksMonitor.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Now watch this video, which zooms in on the top of the “monitor” during the “impact.” And don’t worry – I’m sure that’s just a candy bar in the “FBI agent’s” hand.<br /><p><a href="http://www.livevideo.com/video/C8E9BD6476324BD0A6878640A2961D8B/evan-fairbank-monitor-zoom-s.aspx"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/FairbanksExitFireball.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Notice that on the “monitor,” there is no fireball that emerges from the east face of WTC2. Furthermore, the “exit fireball” isn’t representative of what is happening at the top of the screen.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Speculation:<br /></span></em></strong><br />Ordinarily, I like to end my articles with a conclusion. In this case, I offer a theory instead – since it’s often difficult to state the cause of an impossible image with absolute certainty.<br /><br />My theory is that what we are seeing on the “monitor” is a bluescreen layer that is being FED to the camera that is filming the “impact.” This would explain the appearance of the plane, and it would seem to indicate that the east-face explosion was real (since it wasn’t added on the same layer as the plane). Another possibility is that this video was created before 9/11. I mean, does the smoke coming out of WTC1 in the Fairbanks video look anything at all like this?</p><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/WTC1EastFace.jpg" border="0" /></a></p><p>How far off does a camera setting have to be to make black smoke appear to be white?</p><p>Again, this “monitor theory” is speculation. Until such time as somebody is able to come up with a more sensible theory that explains the presence of the second plane, this will be my belief.<br /><br />Remember that any theory that claims the second plane to be a reflection must account for the lack of an east-face fireball, as well as a much smaller exit fireball.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Afterward:</em></strong></span></p><strong><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em></strong><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Those of us with a firm grasp on the truth have been forced to prove that all of these videos contain fake/CGI/cartoon planes because apparently, most Americans dozed off during Physics class in high school.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Now I realize I can't help everyone to understand Newton's Third Law - but I can try, using an example.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Imagine yourself punching a steel beam (obviously, you're not going to damage it). That pain that you would feel in your fist and travelling up your arm is a direct result of Newton's Third Law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Notice how this law has no "fine print" disclaimers, like "...unless that force is travelling at a very high speed" or "unless that force is applied in mid-air."</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">When applying Newton's Third Law to a plane crashing into box-steel beams, what must be realized is that all of the speed and momentum of the plane that seems to impress som many people, is applied to the surface area of the plane that would be in contact with the beams at the point of impact. Equal and opposite.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">In essence, the plane would be hitting itself with the same force it would be applying to the steel beams.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">If you don't understand this concept, then I'm sorry - you'll have to keep up with all the videos that have been proven to be fake.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">If you DO understand this, then you're fully armed with all the information you need to spread the truth - even if you've never watched a single video.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span></p>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-71129282617885257262007-04-14T08:55:00.000-05:002007-06-30T05:23:21.549-05:00The Earth Is Not Flat<span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Introduction</em></strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I started this blog for one reason: to make what I discovered during my research available to the general public.<br /><br />If this is your first visit to this site, be prepared to have your sense of reality altered. After you review the information I have to present, you will know – as I do – that no planes crashed anywhere on September 11, 2001.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">No planes crashed anywhere on September 11th.</span></strong> It’s a fact.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Exhibit A</span></em></strong><br /><br />Being an engineer, all I needed was a nudge to see the truth. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this was the picture that started it for me: </span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/impact.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Half in, half out… can I get a damage report? Let’s see… the plane appears to be fine – same goes for the tower. Notice how there’s no hole in the tower between the engines and the fuselage. This picture is representative of a pixel crash, not a plane crash.<br /><br />Like I said, this picture was the “nudge” that did it for ME. As an engineer, that’s what got me thinking about what would really happen if a plane were to actually strike the World Trade Center. Even with equations, I wouldn’t be able to convince most people that this image can’t possibly be real. This is why I do my best to steer clear of that and appeal to people’s common sense.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Exhibit B</span></em></strong><br /><br />Speaking of common sense, consider these image sequences from CBS. The left hand side was first shown approximately 2 minutes after the live “event.” The right hand side was shown approximately 7 ½ minutes after the live “event.”<br /><br />To save space, I’ve lined up every 12th frame (0.4 seconds) starting 4 seconds prior to a breach of the north face of WTC2: </span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/T-4CBS.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />If you can’t see what I see, let me help. Look at only the top frame set: </span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/T-4CBS1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Now, imagine you’re holding the camera for the screenshot on the left. How far left do you suppose you’d have to walk to be able to see the “plane” on the opposite side of the other tower, as shown on the right? Do you think 45 degrees would do the trick? Maybe 30? How about 20? Well, according to my calculations, the difference between these two camera angles is only about 6 degrees. Even Kevin Bacon should know that 6 degrees isn't THAT much.<br /><br />Remember, these two frames represent the exact same moment in time. Given the speed of the plane and the distance of the camera, these would have to be two different planes for these videos to be real.<br /><br />Did five planes crash on 9/11? Of course not. No planes crashed on 9/11.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Exhibit C </span></em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">What could be more unbelievable than a 767 flying through the steel structure of WTC2 and coming out of the other side with a fully intact nosecone? How about the fact that there are no steel columns missing on the exit side?<br /><br />Rock breaks scissors, scissors cut paper, paper covers rock – and aluminum TRANSCENDS steel?</span> </p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/TheHoleThatWasNotThere.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Here we have yet another sequence of physically impossible images. Several videos clearly show a fully-intact “plane” exiting the north face of WTC2. For these images to be real, steel beams would have to be shorn, just as they seemingly were on the entry face. However, there are clearly no sections of steel beams missing from the picture on the right.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">You’ve Been Programmed</span></em></strong><br /><br />These three exhibits are just the tip of the iceberg. Read on through the rest of my articles and you will learn even more about the most important fact regarding 9/11:<br /><br />No planes crashed on 9/11.<br /><br />If you still doubt that fact after seeing the first three exhibits, ask yourself why.<br /><br />The answer twofold, yet simple: Repetition and Fear. The Repetition factor is obvious. The mainstream media replayed these fake videos relentlessly for weeks after 9/11. They interviewed what seemed like hundreds of people who eventually started to tell the same stories.<br /><br />The Fear factor is not as obvious. I’m not talking about the fear of terrorism. I’m referring to social fear – the fear of holding an opinion contrary to popular opinion. Millions of people have simply chosen to “go with the flow” in the absence of any contradictory evidence. "The Earth is Flat - because everyone else thinks it is."</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Luckily, you don't have to get on a ship and start sailing to prove them wrong. All you have to do is take a closer look.<br /><br />Was it the videos that made you believe in planes, or the words that were being spoken in the background? Was it the overwhelming testimony of all the “eyewitnesses,” or was it your conversation with your co-workers?<br /><br />You may ask: “What about all the eyewitnesses? Are you calling them ALL liars?”<br /><br />As a matter of fact, I am.<br /><br />There’s a plethora of them to choose from, and yes – they are ALL lying. As a matter of fact, even eyewitnesses that say they didn’t see the plane are lying about something. Perhaps more appropriately, they are “selling” lies. If they’re not selling planes, they’re selling confusion, which is just as effective by the time they pull together all of their “video evidence.”<br /><br />When I began to look into the background of the “eyewitnesses” who “called in” to the various networks, I invariably found that even those people who appeared to be “common folk” were anything but. They were either tied to the media or big business. Feel free to read through any one of my “eyewitness” report cards and bounce these stories against your personal “common sense.”<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The Big Picture</span></em></strong><br /><br />So where does logic take us when we realize that no planes crashed on 9/11? For starters, that means there were no hijackers – which means every single detail about these hijackers has been fabricated out of nothing.<br /><br />No plane crashes means that all the damage was caused by something other than planes – pre-planted explosives – Hollywood style, with plenty of smoke. Did they use mini-nukes or microwave weaponry to bring down the towers? My money is on microwave weaponry, but I really don’t care.<br /><br />I also don’t care about other questions you may have, like what happened to the people who were supposedly on those planes. Two of these flights didn’t even exist. Well, if they can fabricate flights, why would they stop there? Of course, some of the people on these planes had to exist – but would it be unreasonable to assume that they could easily make up a hundred or so names?<br /><br />Dave Sturgeon, a school teacher, was 58 years old. He was survived by his wife, Barbara, and two children, Todd and Ellen. He was on his way to visit his brother in California.<br /><br />There. I just made one up. If I needed four – I’d have put his whole family on board with him. I’ll just come up with a grieving mother who can show up to attend the 9/11 commission hearings.<br /><br />Go ahead, call me insensitive. By nature, logic is insensitive. By all means, get good and angry – and then consider this:<br /><br />The media has put all of this in front of you. 9/11 was a “made for TV” movie. Fiction on TV doesn’t end when you turn on the Nightly News, it only becomes more creative.<br /><br />And who benefits? It’s actually harder to come up with a list of who doesn’t benefit.<br /><br />You can hardly turn the channel today without seeing terrorism. CSI, 24, the Nightly News – it’s everywhere. The only question I have about state-sponsored terrorism is whether the state is Nevada or Maryland.<br /><br />The department of Homeland Fraud - today’s terror threat level is green, which means they’re in your wallets. Oil companies, security companies, defense contractors. And why stop at just the US economy? Who’s making weapons for the other side? Who’s paying for their military endeavors?<br /><br />Global terrorism benefits everyone – except taxpayers.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Annoyances<br /></span></em></strong><br />I apologize for all the side-effects that this newfound knowledge may cause you. I can only speak for myself on exactly what they may be. In my case, I can’t watch many shows on television that I once enjoyed.<br /><br />I can’t watch the Nightly News on any channel without becoming disgusted by how stupid they expect me to be. </span><span style="font-family:times new roman;">And then there’s that pussy, Bill Maher, says that conspiracy theories about 9/11 can’t be true because they assume two things: that our government is competent and that they can keep a secret.<br /><br />Well, Bill – as difficult as it may be for you to comprehend, those two occurrences may be improbable, but the videos we were shown on television are IMPOSSIBLE. Impossible trumps improbable every time. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">This is the aspect that most people who rush to use Occam's Razor to defend the OGCT (Official Government Conspiracy Theory) forget to incorporate. No matter how simple a series of events may seem, if the result depends on one or more events that are deemed to be impossible, that theory must be discarded.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Besides, the only role the government played in 9/11 was spending our money and lying - and we all know that's just business as usual for them. How ironic that a man who once hosted a program called “Politically Incorrect” has now become so political and so incorrect.<br /><br />Carlos Mencia goes so far as to suggest that airport security should let all American-looking people walk to their seats and only check “Ragheads.” Carlos, if you’re reading this – know that I think you’re “Dee-Dee-Dee.” Get a clue. Planes had nothing to do with 9/11.<br /><br />No planes crashed on 9/11.<br /><br />They blew up the towers. They showed us some movies. They hand-picked some storytellers. They made up some hijackers. And over five years later, they’re still trying like hell to sell this lie.<br /><br />Who is they? Start with the media/eyewitnesses, and work your way back. It’s that simple.<br /><br />I don’t understand why so many people are busy worrying about HOW they blew up the towers. I have no clue why people are so worried about what the so-called leaders of the 9/11 truth movement are up to.<br /><br />If you want to be productive, spread the word that no planes crashed on 9/11. Make that common knowledge, and I promise you – the rest will take care of itself.<br /></p></span><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Conclusion</em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">My work here is as complete as it needs to be to prove that the only plane we saw on 9/11 was nothing more than various CGI images of a plane disappearing into WTC2. It shouldn't take a genius to connect the dots and realize that if they faked that "crash," then the other "crashes" were also just "stories."</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">In my opinion, there is no benefit in pursuing any other aspects of 9/11 until this fact becomes common knowledge. I would urge any of the upcoming talented video creators to use any of the concepts and/or imagery from my articles to help in making this common knowledge.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">If you were to build a house of cards with all the lies and disinformation floating around about 9/11, this is the one card that will bring the entire house down. That is why I have never strayed from my efforts to prove this, regardless of how easy it would be to prove other falsehoods.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Of course they blew up the towers. Of course nothing crashed into the Pentagon. Of course nothing crashed in Shanksville. Of course the 9/11 Truth Movement is infested with people spewing even more lies than the original story.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">None of that means anything... until you can prove that it all began with a Hollywood explosion.</span></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p>Now get out there and spread the word. If anyone needs anything more from me, ask me in the comment section.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"><strong><em></em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"><strong><em>For Your Review</em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"><strong>"Eyewitnesses"</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/10/911-wnyw-fox5-blooper-jim-friedl.html">"Jim Friedl"</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards.html">Rose Arce</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards_05.html">Theresa Renaud</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards_07.html">Richard Davis</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards_12.html">Don Dahler</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards_16.html">Kai Simonsen</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards_17.html">Libby Clark</a></span></p><p><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-fairy-tales-installment-i-nypd.html">"NYPD Craig"</a></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Just Plane Fact</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/10/911-tv-fakery-hunt-boeing-wtc-2.html">Pythagoras</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/11/911-tv-fakery-whistleblower-pinocchio.html">Pinocchio I</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/11/911-tv-fakery-whistleblower-pinocchio_17.html">Pinocchio II</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-tv-fakery-pinocchio-part-iii.html">Pinocchio III</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2007/01/911-tv-fakery-45-degree-ua175-flight.html">Flight Path Fallacy</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"><strong>Media Madness</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/11/911-cnn-pipeline-as-media-wants-you-to.html">CNN Pipeline</a></span></p>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com200tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1167767291786550962007-01-02T14:35:00.000-05:002007-01-03T12:32:45.886-05:009/11 TV-Fakery: 45 Degree UA175 Flight Path Discrepancy?<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction</span></em></strong><br /><br />Something has always bothered me about the work of Marcus Icke and Stephan Grossman. Here we have a case of individuals having the wherewithal to not only model the exact layout of the towers, but also overlay accurate plane models on top of the inserted plane CGI’s.<br /><br />I’ve often wished that I had that model at my disposal so that I could use it properly. Instead of using it to try to sell hologram disinfo, the first thing I would do with that model is to flip to a plan view (view from directly above). From there, I would be able to demonstrate how vastly different all the flight paths of these cartoon planes are.<br /><br />Well, rather than waiting for Icke and Grossman to retract their hologram disinformation, I decided to create my own plan view using a simple 2D drawing.<br /><br />The 2 videos I will be comparing in this article are the </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdkyk1up4ZA"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">CBS live broadcast (Part 2)</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> and </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=383SNILjf8I"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">wtc2-strike7</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">. The reason I have chosen these 2 videos is because although the camera angles aren’t that dissimilar, the CGI’s are visible on opposite sides of the towers.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis</span></em></strong><br /><br />Just as in Pinocchio Part III, I will be using the first visible breach of the north face of WTC2 as a time marker – only this time, I’ll be winding the clock backwards.<br /><br />From the CBS footage, we can observe the first breach of WTC2’s north face in a full-speed replay at frame 6913. The frame rate of this video is 15 frames per second. Winding the clock back 3 seconds (45 frames), we can see that the CGI is just disappearing behind WTC1 in frame 6868.<br /><br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/CBSFrames.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />As much as I try to keep my proofs as simple as possible, sometimes I am forced to resort to math. Please forgive me, as unfortunately, this is one of those times.<br /><br />The first thing I need to calculate is how far from the towers a “real plane” would have been three seconds before reaching the north face of WTC2. As always, I will use the worst case scenario for my theory. Even though almost all estimates of the “plane’s” velocity are lower, I will assume a velocity of 567.27 mph.<br /><br />The reason I chose this velocity is because it works out to exactly 12 building widths, making it easily scalable in my future diagrams. This works out to 832 feet/second, or 2496 feet over 3 seconds.<br /><br />We can calculate the camera angle relative to WTC2 by counting the number of pixels of each face. I counted 8 pixels for the east face and 39 pixels for the north face from frame 6868. This works out to an angle of about 11.5 degrees (tan 11.59 = 8/39). Since the distance from the camera to the towers is so great, I won’t bother to increase the angle relative to WTC1.<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 360px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/CBSpx.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Using this information, I can now place the CGI in my plan view by setting it 12 building widths south of the north face, and on an 11.5 degree angle to the corner of WTC1, as shown below. The only other information required was the space between the towers. For my plan view, I used a spacing of 128ft north-to-south and 20ft east-to-west. Of course, I used 208ft for the tower widths.<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/CBSPlan.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Using the same method to determine the camera angle from frame 190 of wtc2-strike7, I counted 54 pixels for the east face and 124 pixels of the north face. This works out to a camera angle of 23.5 degrees (tan 23.53 = 54/124).<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 360px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/strike7px.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Let’s see what happens when we project a line at 23.5 degrees to the south corner of WTC2:<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/2videoplan.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />This diagram shows that three seconds prior to the breach of the north face of WTC2 in wtc2-strike7, the “plane” should either not be visible at all or it should just barely line up with the left edge of WTC2.<br /><br />Turning now to the wtc-strike7 video, we can observe the first breach of WTC2’s north face in frame 198. The frame rate of this video is 30 frames per second. When we wind the clock back 3 seconds (90 frames), this is what we see:<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/strike7Frames.jpg" border="0" /></a></p><p>As you can see, the “plane” is nowhere near the edge of WTC2. In fact, it appears to be approaching on a line as much as 45 degrees farther east than it was in the CBS video.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Conclusion</em></strong><br /></span><br />I am beginning to lose count of how many methods I’ve used to prove that this “plane” was a CGI.<br /><br />Feel free to draw your own plan view and perform your own calculations if you like. Since the “planes” in these videos are both clearly visible, there is no way of refuting this particular proof. On that point, I challenge all comers.<br /><br />Before anyone dares to challenge this analysis, remember that any real plane, had it been traveling any slower than 567mph, would certainly not have been visible at all in the wtc2-strike7 video.<br /><br />Similarly, any distance between the towers greater than the 128ft north-to-south and 20ft east-to-west would also further obscure the CGI in wtc2-strke7.<br /><br />Also remember that in order to refute my conclusion, you must prove that my margin of error is in the neighborhood of 45 degrees.<br /><br />Good luck!</p><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Correction</span></em></strong></p><p>My "guestimate" of 45 degrees was based on my assumption of the proximity of the camera. However, after the "action" is over with in wtc2-strike7, the camera zooms out, revealing a much greater distance than I had originally assumed.</p><p>Based on a revised estimate of camera distance (1 mile away), I am retracting my 45 degree "guestimate," and replacing it with a much better founded discrepancy of 10 degrees, based on the following information/calculations:</p><p>In frame 108, the nose of the plane is 185 pixels from the south corner of WTC2.</p><p>The east face, when viewed from 23.5 degrees, would appear to be only 83 feet (208 sin 23.5). If 54 pixels represents 83 feet, then 185 pixels would represent 284 ft.</p><p>Projecting a line from a camera position 1 mile away through a point 284 feet from the south corner of WTC2 and ending 12 building widths past the north face, this yields a "plane position" which is 463 feet away from the "CBS Plane."</p><p>Calculating the angle based on the "final destination" on the north face of WTC2, I arrived at a discrepancy of 10 degrees:<br /><br /></p><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/10Deg.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />I have admitted that my "guestimate" was not very accurate, based on an incorrect assumption of the camera distance. However, this does not change my conclusion at all. These are still two very different flight paths, as indicated by the</span></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> diagram above. </span><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I was going to change the title of this article, but since I worded it as a question, I decided against it. My point is still the same: These images are CGI's, not planes.</span></p>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com44tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1167320161903328052006-12-28T10:32:00.000-05:002006-12-29T10:52:58.950-05:009/11 Fairy Tales - Installment I: "NYPD Craig"<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction<br /></span></em></strong><br />As I was reading through some of my old posts at breakfornews.com, I stumbled across a list of eyewitness links offered up by my old pal, Stallion4. One of these links directed me to a blog on <a href="http://911blogger.com/node/3094">911blogger</a>, which was basically a cut and paste job of a MySpace page.<br /><br />After reading this guy’s story, I felt obligated to get this page removed from the web – especially after reading all of the sappy reaction comments by people who obviously lack the attention to detail required to see this man’s story for what it is: pure fiction.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis<br /></span></em></strong><br />This isn’t a difficult lie to expose. In fact, all I have to do is post </span><a href="http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=102815&blogID=85663937&MyToken=7c2cfb85-66aa-4f8e-bd09-a24764f15713"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">a link to the story</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> and even the average 9/11 researcher will catch the blatant lie.<br /><br />Forget the nonsense about working a different shift, talking to his mom, etc. It’s not even about the lack of a “little old lady” under the engine on Church Street. It’s about chronology.<br /><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;"><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">“I heard a deafening explosion, and remember flinching as the first plane struck the north tower of the World Trade Center. You couldn’t really see the towers from where I was standing, which were only a few blocks away. However my peripheral vision caught an orange halo up and to my left. I remember some black streak too, which crossed my vision from left to right, but I can't be sure of that memory. The next thing I remember was a sound, not unlike a serious car accident, just one block west of me on Church Street. My radio exploded just then. I said out loud, "What the fuck is going on"? With my mother still on the phone, I started running west, from Broadway to Church Street.<br /><br />Having been assigned to the Transit Bureau in the NYPD, I have seen people cut in half by trains, people bleeding out from wounds, compound fractures caused by people just being in a hurry, and countless other morbid forms of human tragedy. You do not expect to see half of a smoking airplane engine on the ground, in front of the Burger King you eat at least once a week. I'm sorry, but nothing prepares you for that. Even worse, I did not expect to see the remains of what I believed was a little old woman, under half of an airplane engine, either. As I stared at the smear that was alive thirty seconds prior, I lifted the phone to my ear and remember wincing at the heat emanating off of the wreckage in front of me.”</span><br /></span><br />Later on, “Craig” talks about being knocked unconscious after the “second plane impact.” Of course, I can’t bring myself to believe a single word of this story, since he expects us to believe that the engine at the corner of Church Street and Warren Street came from the “first plane.”<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusion</span><br /></em></strong><br />If the comments below the story on that page are from real people, this is yet another example of how willing people are to gobble up every single 9/11 lie they are offered.<br /><br />The goal of this article is to have this story permanently removed from the internet. Time will tell if I am successful in this endeavor.</span>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com81tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1166892771136337752006-12-23T11:49:00.000-05:002006-12-28T10:41:59.346-05:009/11 TV-Fakery: Pinocchio - Part III: Screwing Up the Cover-Up of the Cover-Up of the Screw-Up<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction –</span> The “Venus Plane Trap”<br /></em></strong><br />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.<br /><br />That’s right folks, Pinocchio has returned to expound upon yet another detail of the post-production fakery: The “Venus Plane Trap.”<br /><br />The “Venus Plane Trap" was originally present only in the “Gamma Press” post-production video. This video can be viewed </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpw4FZcfiqM"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">here</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> The "Venus Plane Trap"<br /></em></strong><br />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: </span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 360px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Frame84.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />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?<br /><br />From frames 92 through 101, it is obvious to see the difference between the actual explosion and the inserted Flame-Fakery:</p><p><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/VenusPlaneTrap.jpg" border="0" /></a>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.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis – </span>Spatial Ambiguity<br /></em></strong><br />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.<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/FromNISTpg10.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis – </span>Simplifying to 3 Frames</em></strong><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />What we’ll be looking for in these frames is consistency with what we see here: </p><p></span></p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Gamma3Frames.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> A Look at Live Shots, Replays, and Early Videos </em></strong></span><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdkyk1up4ZA"><em>As it Happened CBS Part 2</em></a></p></span><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/CBS3Frames.jpg" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-family:times new roman;">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...</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS8TBZdot5I"><em>WPIX Part 1</em></a></span></p><p><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/WPIX3Frames.jpg" border="0" /></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exl58qsLDh8"><em>CNBC</em></a></span></p><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/CNBC3Frames.jpg" border="0" /></a></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Pretty much the same as WPIX, only lower resolution. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDNcjxFoAkk"><em>CNN Exclusive</em></a></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> </span><br /></p><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Exclusive3Frames.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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." </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR183M_VJas"><em>Evan Fairbanks</em></a></span></p><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Fairbanks3Frames.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis - </span>Summary of Comparisons</em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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."<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> Identifying the Second Generation Videos</em></strong><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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 “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=383SNILjf8I">wtc2-strike-7.avi</a>” was specifically created as a preemptive measure for the inevitable day when these physical impossibilities would be pointed out.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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:</span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></p></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p></span></p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Strike7Frames.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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? </span><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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</span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> we take a look at a critical 10-frame sequence of this obvious forgery:</span> </p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p></span></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/SnailSwallow.jpg" border="0" /></span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Remember, they <strong><em>NEEDED</em></strong> 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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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."<br /><br /></span><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusion</span><br /></em></strong><br />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:<br /></p></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p></span></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/PrematureShadow.jpg" border="0" /></span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <strong><em>AT ALL COSTS</em></strong>, because it exposes the most lethal weapon they have at their disposal: the mainstream media.<br /><br />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.</span>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com62tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1166380403400865922006-12-17T13:31:00.000-05:002007-05-14T09:03:36.338-05:00"Libby" Clark: 9/11 Eyewitness Report Cards, Installment VI<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Foreword<br /></span></em></strong><br />After reflecting upon the chain of logic I followed in order to determine the identity of this “eyewitness,” I decided it was interesting enough to present alongside the actual details of the information. In fact, it’s almost impossible for me to present the information without also explaining how I acquired it.<br /><br />By slightly altering the presentation format for this installment, I hope to give readers a little insight into the way that I approach problems in general. I’ve intentionally left this installment “unfinished,” so I can offer a challenge to all comers to “fill in the blanks.” So without further ado, let’s get on with this installment.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction –</span> “Libby” Clark</em></strong><br /><br />“Libby” Clark offered the first “eyewitness account” of the “first plane” on WABC. Her story, at least the beginning of it, can be heard in </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y964BRwVN4g"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">this video</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">.<br /><br />If you clicked on the link, you may have noticed that "Libby" gives us very little information about who she is and where she was when she saw what she says she saw (she also doesn’t mention if she sells seashells by the seashore).<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Approach –</span> Establish All Known Information (regardless of importance or validity)<br /></em></strong><br />“Libby” defines her location as “the 33rd floor of Mercer Street.” This is an odd way for someone to describe their location, isn’t it? This is hardly enough information to pinpoint her actual location, right? Not so fast…<br /><br />Trying to find a person in New York with no information is like looking for a needle in a haystack. However, if you have a street and an elevation, the simile becomes more like looking for a golf ball that you just sliced into the woods. You know the general line it went in on - you’re just not sure how far it went in.<br /><br />The golf ball simile fits perfectly for me, because even when I know there isn’t a chance in hell I’m ever going to find my golf ball, I feel I’ve developed a close enough relationship with it after a few holes to warrant a courtesy drive-by search.<br /><br />Lo and behold, when I look down the length of Mercer Street using Google Earth, I see only 4 buildings that look like they may have a 33rd floor:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p></p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/300MercerGoogle.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Three of those buildings are NYU housing facilities (including the “Silver Towers” @100 & 110 Bleecker St). As luck would have it, all three of these buildings are only </span><a href="http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GV/GV016UniversityVillage.htm"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">32 stories high</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">.<br /><br />This leaves 300 Mercer Street as the only possible building that “Libby” could have been in if she was on the “33rd floor of Mercer Street” and had a view of the towers.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Persistence –</span> Follow the Trail<br /></em></strong><br />Now that we have a location, it’s time to gather more information. We can start by having a look at the building using Virtual Earth:<br /><p></p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 640px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/300MercerVirtual.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />In this case, there happens to be plenty of information available, since </span><a href="http://www.300mercer.com/"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">this building has its own website</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">.<br /><br />The fact that they have a doorman and a rooftop pool isn’t terribly important, but it gives us a general idea of the income required to be able to afford living there. A very helpful bit of info is the floor plan. Based on a standardized layout, we can assume that “Libby" was on the 33rd floor between units E and J:<br /><br /><p></p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/300MercerFloorPlan.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />They are also kind enough to provide us with an interactive pool view, from which we can get an idea of what “Libby” would have been able to see from her vantage point, looking to the south:<br /><p></p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ViewFrom300MercerRoof.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Resourcefulness –</span> Use Every Available Tool<br /></em></strong><br />I decided I knew enough to perform a reverse address search. From that search (which yielded </span><a href="http://www.whitepages.com/9900/search/ReverseAddress?housenumber=300&street=Mercer&city_zip=New+York&state_id=NY"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">over100 results</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">), the first thing I was able to determine was the apartment number format. After going through the entire list, there were only three names listed on the 33rd floor, (two in 33I and one in 33J). Furthermore, there was not a single “Clark” result at all.<br /><br />After finding far too many Clark results for the entire city of New York and no Libby, L., Elizabeth, or E. Clark anywhere near there, I finally hit on a winning combination. Using only the last name and the street name, I came up with one result:<br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.whitepages.com/9900/log_feature/adv_search_w_email/search/FindPerson?firstname_begins_with=1&firstname=&name=clark&housenumber=300&street=mercer&city_zip=ny&state_id=NY&default_listing=phone&listing=mixed"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">James Clark</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">: [undisclosed] Mercer Street, New York, NY 10003.<br /><br />Upon closer scrutiny, this address ends up being far from undisclosed. I pulled up a map of the 10003 Zip Code, and as it turns out, only the two northernmost blocks of Mercer Street fall inside the 10003 Zip Code boundaries:<br /><p></p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/10003ZipCodeMap.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />300 Mercer Street is not only within these 2 blocks, it also happens to be one of the only buildings that isn’t a commercial business site or an educational institution (NYU):<br /><p></p><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/300MercerZillow.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Profiling –</span> Know Your Mark (or in this case, your Clark)</em></strong><br /><br />That was enough for me to go searching for notable James Clark’s in New York. Based on all prior "eyewitnesses," I was looking for links to the media, financial institutions, or a law firm.<br /><br />I found a couple of interesting candidates when I Googled “James Clark NY.” There is a James Clark who founded Silicon Graphics, Netscape, Healtheon (now WebMD) and myCFO. He is also on the board of Shutterfly, myCFO and DNA Sciences. This sounded promising, but after reading the actual article, I found it difficult to believe that this was the Clark I was looking for. </p><p>Another result that caught my attention was a </span></p><a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0DF133DF932A05752C0A965958260"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">NY Times wedding announcement</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">. The wedding announcement result reminded me that the initial reason I was searching for James in the first place was because of his wife. Granted, this wedding announcement was back in 1993; but after taking a minute to read the jobs of everyone in both of these families, these people seem to fit the profile of some of the earlier “eyewitnesses.”<br /><br />If you take a look at </span><a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE3D9123AF932A15751C0A96E948260"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">who Evan's sister married</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> a few years earlier (also announced in the NY Times), it’s difficult to ignore the apparent marriage strategy of the Freehill family. All the while, from Darien, CT to the Big Apple - </span><a href="http://www.freehill.com/"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">daddy’s law firm</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> continued its rise to prominence.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusion Contest</span></em></strong><br /><br />Here’s where I’m really deviating from the norm. All I have presented here is half a story. I’ve been so impressed by the follow-up work that’s been done by others after some of these articles (most notable is Fred’s follow-up on Richard Davis and Bessemer Trust) that I’ve decided to go interactive with this installment.<br /><br />I’ve set up a temporary hotmail address where I’ll be accepting <strong><em>YOUR</em></strong> analyses and conclusions with regard to “Libby” Clark. Please submit your research to </span><a href="mailto:LibbyClarkSubmissions@hotmail.com"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">LibbyClarkSubmissions@hotmail.com</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">.<br /><br />My half story is missing some critical information/validation, including:<br /><br />Is “Libby” really Evan Marie Clark (nee Freehill), who seemingly changed her name to Evan F. Clark in 2001?<br /><br />Where exactly was she?<br /><br />What doesn’t make sense about her “eyewitness account?”<br /><br />Did she lie about feeling/seeing a plane on behalf of her husband, her father, or do you think she acted alone?<br /><br />Why would anyone name their child Siobahn?<br /><br />(That last tidbit, complete with Evan’s e-mail address, comes from </span><a href="http://cornell-magazine.cornell.edu/Archive/2002mayjune/notes/1980to1989.html"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">here</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">)<br /><br />I’ve set the pins up, and I’m asking you to knock them down. I have nothing to reward you with but credit and praise (and maybe some podcast airtime). If you believe in my approach, I should hope that would be enough. I will post the winning submission on January 1, 2007, in addition to presenting any unique viewpoints I come across in your e-mails.<br /><br />If I don’t get any submissions, I guess I’ll just have to finish the article myself. At the very least, this should free me up to format and publish my list.</span><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I don’t plan on posting much (if any) new material until 2007. Of course, I can’t guarantee that I won’t stumble upon an irresistible story in the meantime, but I’ll be doing my best to enjoy the holidays.</span></p>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com558tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1166290762650346932006-12-16T12:33:00.000-05:002007-05-14T09:04:22.442-05:00Kai Simonsen: 9/11 Eyewitness Report Cards, Installment V<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction –</span> Kai Simonsen<br /></em></strong><br />First off, I want to apologize for promising in my last article that this article would include my "eyewitness" list. Due to the rate at which I’m unearthing information about these individuals, I’ve decided to keep this list close to my vest for the time being. Hopefully, after reading this article, you’ll understand why I’ve decided to keep these names under wraps until I’ve had the chance to do my diggin’ (I don’t want “breadcrumbs” disappearing from the web before I have the chance to find them).<br /><br />Kai Simonsen is the FOX News "reporter" who was reportedly inside Chopper 5 at the time of the “second impact.” I downloaded the footage that mentions Kai from <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/911-Chronology-Source">911 Chronology - Source Material</a> (approximate VRTs 21:25 and 23:20). I'm currently working on creating a multipurpose excerpt for YouTube, but for now, I guess you'll have to either go there yourself or take my word for it.</span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong>UPDATE:</strong> There is already a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA2luI2wUEk&mode=related&search=">YouTube video</a> in existence that includes FOX News tapping into Kai's feed. For some reason, the audio has been turned down the first time Kai comes on at 15:30 Video Run Time (VRT). This is not the case in the 9/11 Chronology video. Kai comes on again in the YouTube video at 17:25 VRT.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> The Kai Simonsen Interview</em></strong><br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><a href="http://www.documentnewyork.com/story.php?primaryKey=23"><img style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; WIDTH: 120px; CURSOR: hand; MARGIN-RIGHT: auto; TEXT-ALIGN: left" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/KaiSimonsen.jpg" border="0" /></a>(Click photo to read interview)<br /><br />Aside from the fact that this article contains countless spelling errors and some of the longest sentences I’ve ever read in my life, there are a couple of interesting things that Kai mentions.<br /><br />First of all, he says that he had just landed in Caldwell, NJ when he received a text message about the “first impact.” Then he says that shortly thereafter, they took off again and headed for the towers. As the crow flies, it’s about 20 miles from Caldwell to the towers. Yet we can see from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1umznssiZU">this video</a> that Chopper 5 is barely moving as it films from several miles away. In fact, it is actually moving sideways faster than it is approaching the towers.<br /><br />No matter what time they actually launched, this scenario doesn’t make any sense. If they launched only 5 minutes after the “first impact,” then it took them 13 minutes to travel approximately 13 miles. So why would they slow down from 60mph to less than 10mph (and not even toward the towers) while they were still several miles away?<br /><br />Furthermore, who was controlling the zoom factor of the camera? And why would that person choose to zoom in when they did? Of course, the second question is moot, since we now know that the purpose of this zoom was to provide us with an unmistakable image of a “plane.”<br /><br />Skipping over the absurd “sightseeing pilot” comment, I will make a note for later about the obviously false statement that he was “up there for a few hours.” His reference to a fellow FOX reporter who was “hiding inside one of the trucks,” is also noteworthy.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> Kai Drops Some Breadcrumbs?<br /></em></strong><br />After reading this interview, I moved on to the second page of Google results for Kai Simonsen. Dated December 19, 2001 – this is what I found (click on the image for the actual link):<br /><br /></span><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></p></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><a href="http://asianamericanfilm.com/cgi-bin/boards/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=84&forum=DCForumID1&archive=yes"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: left" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/KaiRentalAd.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Amazing, isn’t it? Everything you need to create your very own media hoax, all in one place! They even have a green screen! I wonder if this was the same studio that is currently for rent at 28 Warren Street.<br /><br />After noticing that he had two posts in that forum, I dug up the second as well:<br /><br /></span><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></p></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><a href="http://asianamericanfilm.com/cgi-bin/boards/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=315&forum=DCForumID1&archive=yes"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: left" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/KaiAerialAd.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />FYI, the mandy.com link is dead, as is the second link (although the <a href="http://www.sundialproductions.com/sundial/films.html">sundialproductions.com website</a> is alive and well). Whether Kai feels he was in the clear at that point or whether he felt guilty and started dropping "breadcrumbs," I don’t know. If anyone cares to ask him, you might want to do it quickly, before he suddenly has an "accident" or a "heart attack."</p><p>I’m not sure whether that phone number is still valid, so you may want to try contacting him at his <a href="http://www.millenniumhd.com/">current company</a>.<br /><br />Even though the mandy.com link is dead, I’m going to add that “kai005” page name to my notes. </p><p><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong>UPDATE:</strong> I figured they might kill both of Kai's links associated with the screenshots above, so I saved them before I posted this article. Great thanks to Webfairy for allowing me to store them on her site.</span></p><p><a href="http://www.thewebfairy.com/stilldiggin/Asian%20American%20Film%20Message%20Boards.htm">First Kai Ad</a></p><p><a href="http://www.thewebfairy.com/stilldiggin/Asian%20American%20Film%20Message%20Boards%20Kai2.htm">Second Kai Ad</a><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> Kai Hits the Streets?</em></strong><br /><br />Back in my Don Dahler installment, I pointed out how Rick Leventhal beckoned his crew to the intersection of Warren and Church. His exact words were “come over this way, Pat. (Five?), Bill - we can see the top of the building from here.”<br /><br />According to this <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218902,00.html">foxnews.com article</a> (halfway down the page):<br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">The FOX News truck, parked on Church Street between Duane and Reade, became a home-in-hell for the New York bureau, which was all-hands-on-deck for the cataclysm. Producers Carlos Van Meek, Kendall Gastelu, Ian Rafferty, Anne Woolsey and Katie Sargent teamed with shooters like Pat Butler, Don Collopy, Scott Wilder and Mike Fagan to ensure viewers saw the devastation in all its ghastly reality.</span><br /><br />Aside from placing the truck 2 blocks north of its actual location (did they have 2 trucks?), who else besides Pat Butler could Rick Leventhal have been talking to? I don’t see a "Bill" on that list, and of course, there’s no “Five” either.<br /><br />If someone held a gun to my head and made me guess, I’d say that “Bill” (maybe Phil?) is this guy, who they picked up sometime after WTC1 “collapsed:”<br /></p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Bill.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Here, we have yet another clear case of the media interviewing… the media. Of course, we later see this “eyewitness” handling cable and running up and down the street just prior to the second collapse.<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ActionBill.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />If you kept the gun to my head and demanded that I guess who “Five” was, I’d have to guess it was Kai Simonsen. This guess would be based on the dead Kai<strong>005</strong> link on mandy.com, the fact that he was associated with Chopper <strong>5</strong>, the fact that he mentions the truck that Pat Butler and Rick Leventhal were "hiding" in, and the assumption that there would have been no need for his “special talents” in the air after they got their “impact” shot (if he was even needed in the air at all).<br /><br />The last time FOX News taps into Kai Simonsen’s feed on WNYW is at 9:12AM. Rick Leventhal is beckoning “Five” at 10:28AM.<br /><br />What do you suppose Don Dahler/”Jim Friedl” would have said to Chopper 5 when he hailed it from his radio after they botched that shot? Does “I want to see you in my office,” or something to that effect sound logical? Landing Chopper 5 on one of the nearby rooftops (perhaps on a building covered in tarp?) is far more efficient than going back to Caldwell, New Jersey (if they really did launch from there).<br /><br />Remember, this is pure speculation on account of the hypothetical gun to my head. I’m more than willing to hear alternative guesses as to who else “Five” may be.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusion<br /></span></em></strong><br />I find it interesting that I was only able to find one story about Kai Simonsen's experiences with regard to 9/11. Given his vantage point, you’d think his name would be all over television and the internet immediately following 9/11. Instead, I can't find a single reference to him in any mainstream media article or story after 9/11.<br /><br />Wikipedia lists Kai only as one of WNYW's “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNYW">reporters</a>.” However, if you read <a href="http://www.myfoxny.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/Detail?contentId=1347&version=6&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=5.3.1">his bio at WNYW's website</a> and take a look at his present and past businesses, you will quickly understand that he is much more than just a reporter.<br /><br />Without taking the time to ask him, we can never be sure whether those forum posts were legitimate ads or whether he was trying to leave us clues intentionally. For instance, is he trying to tell us that Sundial Productions produced the CGI’s in all of these “amateur” videos?<br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Regardless of his intent, there is no doubt in my mind that Kai Simonsen played a key role in the media hoax aspect of 9/11.</span>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com311tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1165973008868085132006-12-12T20:21:00.000-05:002007-05-14T09:04:56.158-05:00Don Dahler: 9/11 Eyewitness Report Cards, Installment IV<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction –</span> Don Dahler</em></strong><br /><br />Don Dahler is the ABC correspondent who is probably best known for his role in this </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqjKeBS1JwE"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">“Reporter Didn’t See Plane”</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> video clip.<br /><br />I used this clip about a month ago at 911blogger when asked to provide an eyewitness who didn’t see a plane. However, until I started working on this series of articles, I’d never had a chance to review the rest of the available ABC footage.<br /><br />When I first saw and heard that clip a couple of months ago, I naively believed that Don Dahler was just an innocent reporter caught up in the day’s events. However, while reviewing some more ABC footage, I came across something that quickly changed my mind.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> Don Dahler Blows his Cover</em></strong><br /><br />The following exchange between Don Dahler and Peter Jennings occurs shortly after the south tower collapse (footage available </span><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5061514770009171572&q=peter+jennings+wtc+collapse+video&hl=en"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">here</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, VRT 3:00 – 4:52):</span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><em><strong>Peter:</strong></em> </span></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">Now this is what it looked like moments ago... My gosh.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">The southern .. tower ... 10 o'clock eastern time this morning,just collapsing on itself.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">This is a place where thousands of people work. We have no idea what caused this. </span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">Um ..If you wish to bring ah .. anybody who’s ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows .. that if you're going to do this you have to get at the .. at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down. </span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"><em><strong>Don:</strong></em></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">Peter?</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"><em><strong>Peter:</strong></em></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">Yes Dan. </span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><em><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"><strong>Don:</strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"></span></em><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">What appeared to happen from my vantage point .. the top part of the building was totally involved in fire, and there was .. there appeared to be no effort possible to put that fire out.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">It looked like the top part of the building was so weakened by the fire that it just .. the weight of it collapsed the rest of the building .. that's what appeared to happen.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">I did not see anything happening at the base of the building.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">It all appeared to start at the top and then just collapse the rest of the building by the sheer weight of the top.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">There was no explosion or anything at the base part of it, but I .. I did see that the top part of it started to collapse, the walls started to bulge out, bricks, glass, things coming out, and then it collapsed in on itself, and it appeared to just fold down from there, from the very top.</span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><em><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"><strong>Peter:</strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"></span></em><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">Thanks, Don, very much. </span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:courier new;">Um, just looking at that, I don't know why, but I'm .. when was the last time the United States was attacked in this manner - it was Pearl Harbor in 1941.</span><br /></span><br />Notice how Don immediately jumps in to refute Peter’s speculation of demolition, in spite of the fact that he’s just admitted that he can’t see the base of the towers. How can he be so sure that there was no explosion when he clearly was in no position to see it?<br /><br />By virtue of this one exchange, Don blew the doors off the cover that had been so carefully crafted up to that point. I find it incredibly ironic that his credibility was destroyed in concert with the destruction of WTC2.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> Don Dahler’s Location</em></strong><br /><br />Since Don was kind enough to reveal his “perpiness” (figured I’d better coin that word before Stephen Colbert beat me to it), I decided to put him under the same microscope I’d used in the first three installments of this series.<br /><br />According to all reports, Don Dahler spent the entire morning reporting from his 3rd floor loft, 4 blocks away from the towers. This vantage point afforded him with a view of, according to his own words, only the top half of the south tower.<br /><br />Just after the “collapse” of the south tower, he also states that he is observing “thousands of people running up Church Street, which is what I’m looking out on.”<br /><br />This statement gave me enough information to pinpoint what he claims to be his exact location. Don says he is four blocks north of the towers, which would place him on Warren Street. For him to be “looking out on” Church Street from his location, he must have been very close to it.<br /><br />Because he was only three floors up and inside at that time, he’d pretty much have to be right at the corner of Church Street, otherwise his view of Church Street would have been obscured by other buildings in his way. We also know that he was in a loft with a fire escape on the south side of the building.<br /><br />In this case, Google Earth wasn’t that much help to me, since I wasn’t able to view the area at a high enough resolution. However, it did provide me with the general address range I was looking for. Switching to a general address search, I discovered the following photo of the building at 28 Warren Street:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ExteriorWarrenSt2005.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />This is the former Millers Falls Company office. According to this website, it was sold in 1962 after Millers Fall merged with Ingersoll Rand (I’m still digging to find out who currently owns this property).<br /><br />I was actually able to acquire an excellent quality aerial image of this location using Virtual Earth:<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ViewOf28WarrenSt.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />As I was searching for additional background on this address, I also found <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E1D61538F93AA35751C1A962948260&sec=&pagewanted=1"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">this New York Times article</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, dated December 9, 1984 - which states (2/3 down, page 1):<br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">“In Manhattan, commercial condominiums have been or are being offered in converted space in numerous buildings, including 583 Broadway, 599 Broadway and 28 Warren Street.”</span><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> Church St. & Warren St.: The “Hot Corner”<br /></em></strong><br />There was quite a lot of activity going on at this particular intersection that day. In addition to Don Dahler reporting from there, Rick Leventhal of FOX News and his crew had parked their van right across the street from Dahler’s loft on the opposite side of Church St.<br /><br />This is not necessarily common knowledge. In order to determine the location of the FOX News van, I compared the </span><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/national/911/index.html"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">footage from their camera</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> (click on link about 1/3 down the page, titled “10:28AM”) with a different angle of 28 Warren St. from Virtual Earth (using arched windows as reference):<br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/RickFoxNews.jpg" border="0" /></a><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ViewOf45-47WarrenSt.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Although the news van was parked about a half a block south of Don Dahler’s location, you’ll notice from the source footage of the WTC1 “collapse” that most of the filming was taken from the intersection of Church and Warren. In fact, as they move toward Don Dahler’s location, you can even hear Rick telling Fox engineer Pat Butler: “come over this way, Pat. (Five?), Bill - we can see the top of the building from here.”<br /><br />Strange, isn’t it – how they seem to know exactly when the second tower was going to come down?<br /><br />But wait - there’s even more going on near this corner than just a media reunion. Did you happen to notice that building under construction on the East side of Church Street from the FOX News video? That’s the building directly south of Don’s loft and right across from the FOX News van.<br /><br />If it looks familiar at all, maybe this photo will help to jog your memory:<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/plane-engine.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Did that help? That’s the corner of Murray and Church, half a block north of the FOX satellite van. What I really find interesting is that there is no footage showing any reference made to this engine by the FOX News crew until after </span><a href="http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/bigjunk.htm"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">the south tower had “collapsed”</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> (the owner of this site refers to this area as “Spook Central”).<br /><br />You’d think they would have seen that engine earlier, perhaps considered it newsworthy, and taken some video footage of it. After all, according to Leventhal’s story, he arrived shortly after the “second impact.” Of course, for them to film it, the engine would have to have actually been there at that time.<br /><br />I personally believe that all “pictures” that show this engine “being there” before the WTC2 was destroyed are doctored.<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/plane-enginepredust.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Of course, I can’t be certain of this, but perhaps the owner of this “Mystery Van” may have some idea of exactly how and when this engine arrived at the corner:<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/MysteryVan.jpg" border="0" /></a><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/MysteryVan2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />To me, it looks like that could be a heavy duty jib boom rig up on the roof of that van. Let’s just call it speculative food for thought and move on, shall we?<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis -</span> Stacking the Coincidences</em></strong><br /><br />Let’s take a quick minute here to review. In the span of just this one block, we have ABC, FOX, NYPD, and the FBI. We have a “Mystery Van.” We have an entire block of building surrounded by scaffolding, and completely shrouded by tarp above the first floor (can somebody tell me what purpose a tarp that’s at least 10 feet away from the outside of the building could possibly serve?).<br /><br />Also, we have the clean “Tonka Truck” of </span><a href="http://nyfd.com/brooklyn_ladders/ladder_124.html"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Ladder Company 124</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> (from 7 miles away in Brooklyn) which shows up between the time of the two “collapses” and parks at the corner of Murray and Church. Why would they stop there? And who exactly were they talking to on the street before they parked?</span> <p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></p></span><p><br /></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Ladder124.jpg" border="0" /></a></span></p><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213252,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/_911"></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">(<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213252,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/_911#">source footage</a>, top of linked page)<br /><br />Anyway, back to Don Dahler. There’s an occurrence that I just can’t seem to let go of, if for no other reason than the strikingly low odds of it being a coincidence.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> The Don Dahler / “Jim Friedl” Connection</em></strong><br /><br />At the very beginning of the “Reporter Didn’t See Plane” clip, we hear a radio beep while Don is talking on the phone. I believed that the source of this radio beep was from Don’s feed, as opposed to anything else in the studio. Due to the volume of the beep, I also believe that it was in Don’s possession.<br /><br />Going way back to my “Jim Friedl” analysis, bear with me as I excerpt an entire section of that article (entitled “Questions About “Jim Friedl”) that I deemed to be relevant here.<br /><br />That analysis has been lodged in the back of my brain since I wrote it and ultimately led me to start considering whether Don Dahler was the same person as “Jim Friedl.” I’ve highlighted the key elements in <strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">blue</span></strong> below:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">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. </span><br /><br /><p><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">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?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">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.</span></strong> This seems to distract “Jim,” causing him to stop and restart his sentence at the word “directly.” <strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">If you turn your volume up and listen closely, you will hear a second phone ringing with a slightly higher pitch in the background.</span></strong> 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.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">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.</span></strong> Does it sound like “Jim Friedl” was just an ordinary citizen at home in Hoboken?</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">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.</span></strong> If he can really see through buildings, he and Stanley Praimnath should get together and compare superpowers. <strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">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.</span></strong></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">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?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>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.</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">I’m no linguistic profiler or anything, but that won't stop me from coming to these two basic conclusions based on the audio:</span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>1.) His accent does not sound like that of a native NY/NJ resident.</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;color:#3333ff;"><strong>2.) His diction indicates to me that he is well educated.</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">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</span></strong>, 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.</span></span><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> More Evidence Supporting the Dahler / ”Friedl” Connection</em></strong><br /><br />Before you get ready to declare me officially insane, have a look at the following timeline of when Don Dahler is speaking on ABC and “Jim Friedl” is speaking on FOX: </span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></p><p></span><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/DahlerFriedlTimeline.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Not only do the times stack up neatly, there also appears to be no particular reason for Don’s absence on ABC’s air. Surely, anything Don would have had to say would have been much more interesting than the “filler material” that Gibson and Sawyer are spewing while he’s “away.”<br /><br />Clearly, we should now have enough circumstantial evidence to have a quick listen to their voices:<br /><br /></span><a href="http://thewebfairy.com/stilldiggin/Dahler_Jennings.mp3"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Voice of Don Dahler</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> (<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5061514770009171572&q=under+infrastructure&hl=en">source footage here</a>)<br /></span><a href="http://www.veronicachapman.com/audio/JimFreedl.mp3"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Voice of “Jim Friedl”</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8EomY8jcjw">source footage here</a>)</span></p><p><a href="http://thewebfairy.com/stilldiggin/Dahler"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Don Dahler says "building"</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMucVeew8eg">source footage here</a>)<br /></span><a href="http://thewebfairy.com/stilldiggin/Dahler"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Don Dahler says "explosion"</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMucVeew8eg">source footage here</a>) </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Besides being one hell of a smoking gun, this theory opens up the possibility that Don Dahler could have been doing more than just reporting on the events of the day. He may also have been orchestrating the events of the day.<br /><br />Radios can beep regardless of whether the call is incoming or outgoing. What if the beep was outgoing? What if all the people on that particular radio channel could now hear what Don was saying on the air? Couldn’t that be used as an audio cue for the CGI’s to appear?<br /><br />The time between the radio beep and the explosion is 15 seconds. There is no “live” footage out there that shows the plane appearing prior to this radio beep. Because of the fact that most of these angles show the plane “disappearing” behind the towers, there was an allowable margin of error inherent in those angles.<br /><br />I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been scrolling through frames of these videos, thinking “damn, why hasn’t the building exploded yet?” The answer to that question may be that the CGI in the video I was analyzing at the time was initiated early.<br /><br />If you start recording the times between the CGI’s disappearance behind the towers and the “exit face” explosion, these values represent that margin of error. The angle with the least margin of error just happened to be WNYW, or as I prefer to call it, blooper central.<br /><br />If you read this </span><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/News/story?id=128765"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">ABC Nightline Bio of Don Dahler</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, you’ll see some pretty incredible claims about the “missions” he’s been on. I’ve excerpted three of these below:<br /><br />1.) “Dahler was among the first American journalists to enter Afghanistan prior to U.S. military action against the Taliban regime.”<br /><br />2.) “In the summer of 2002, Dahler, a Nightline producer, and camera crew, slipped across the Syrian border into northern Iraq for a series of exclusive reports on the Kurds.”<br /><br />3.) “Dahler covered the war in Iraq as an embedded journalist with the 101st Airborne, traveling and living with the Army soldiers, going on foot-patrols and aerial assaults alongside the front-line troops.”<br /><br />If he truly is “Grade (E)9” (Sergeant Major or Command Sergeant Major in the Army), these “missions” wouldn’t seem to be much of a stretch, would they?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Conclusion</em></strong><br /></span><br />I fully expect to hear some interesting rebuttals with regard to the theory of Don Dahler being the same person as “Jim Friedl.” However, before commenting, remember that the fundamental basis behind this particular speculation goes beyond the ridiculously low odds of the timing sequence being coincidental.<br /><br />Also keep in mind that the included timeline only takes actual speaking time into account. When considering the introductions offered by the anchors, the time lapse between switching identities gets even smaller, giving him just enough time to say something like: “Okay, put me back on.”<br /><br />In addition to all of the circumstantial evidence, this theory is also backed by the closely matching audio files.<br /></p></span><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">What are the odds that two different people with seemingly identical voices:<br /><br />i.) Never speak at the exactly same time<br />ii.) Have the same stutter when they’re faced with the letter “I”<br />iii.) Say the word “building” (amongst other words) exactly the same way<br />iv.) Just happen to be pushing the same “debris coming out the other side” line?<br /><br />An “expert” voice analysis should eliminate the miniscule chance that Don Dahler <strong><em>isn’t</em></strong> “Jim Friedl.”<br /><br />Regardless of that outcome, the fact remains that Don Dahler exposed his “perpiness” when he attempted to overrule Peter Jennings about what may have caused the “collapse” of WTC2. </p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">What he says that he <strong><em>didn’t see</em></strong> (either “plane”) isn’t as important as what he says that he <strong><em>did see</em></strong> (and hear). By describing a "missile sound," he was propagating the notion of "confused witnesses." Keep in mind that as a perp, he knew that the instant we saw the WTC2 CGI on television, we'll all be convinced they were both planes - so why would he need to say he saw either “plane?”</span></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p>Claiming to have not seen either plane accomplishes two things:</p><p><strong>1.)</strong> It protects him from discovery if proof ever arises that there were no planes.</p><p><strong>2.)</strong> It dissociates him from "Jim Friedl," breaking the natural logic barrier that has prevented anyone from even considering this theory before.</p><p>This realization has opened up my mind to another critical element of the entire media hoax. Up to this point, I’ve been incorrectly assuming that witnesses who claimed they never saw either plane were “innocent.” I now believe that every single “eyewitness” (whether they say they saw a plane or not) was presenting scripted material.</p><p>This includes Winston Mitchell, whom I previously believed was a real “eyewitness” without a motive. After looking into his background a bit, I learned that <a href="http://www.mta.info/nyct/trantran/staffbio.htm">Winston Mitchell</a> is both a television and magazine producer.</p><p>My Don Dahler analysis eventually led me to ask myself this very critical question: Would they risk having any REAL eyewitnesses on the phone at all?</p><p>The answer to this question is simply that they wouldn’t. Placing yourself in the perps’ shoes, wouldn’t you want to be in total control of what the public was being fed?</p><p>Notice that although both Winston and Don claim to have not seen the plane, they quickly change their tune after being overruled via television. Remember how easily Winston was influenced by Steve Bartelstein from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZRHT9Dp-Ks">this CNN footage</a> (VRT 2:25 to 3:10)?</p><p>After paying closer attention to Winston’s words, I realized that he doesn't even seem to notice that it's not the same tower that was hit, which means WTC1 would have been blocking his view of the explosion’s origin. Logically, that would place him pretty much due north of WTC1, probably on or near West St. One problem: there aren't any delis near there for him to have "ducked into." Every deli I can find is to the east of the towers.</p><p>When you look at it from the perspective of what the media was trying to accomplish, it’s really not that difficult of a concept to grasp. Their first goal was to appear confused, which included the airing of witnesses who propagated various possibilities that still exist to this day.</p><p>Winston Mitchell “kinda sorta” saw the “first plane.” Don Dahler heard a “missile.” “Jeanne Yurman” felt a “sonic boom” and her TV flickered. What do they all have in common? None of them are saying anything absolute.</p><p>Imagine if a real eyewitness had been allowed on the air who swore up and down that there was no plane? It is for that reason that I firmly believe that both of these attacks were completely silent. If any sound had preceded the explosions, thousands of potential real eyewitnesses would have had a reason to look up. That would have resulted in many more people who would have been sure that there was no plane. If anything, a distraction may have been planned on the ground, and AWAY from the towers. </p><p>By this logic, we should be able to conclude that any jet engine noise included with any “impact” video has been dubbed into the footage.</p><p></span></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Teaser </em></strong></span></span><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I’ll close with a teaser photo from an upcoming analysis before my next article, which will be an attempt to list all “eyewitnesses” who had anything at all to say (on television) about something they saw or heard at the WTC attack site. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Because the “What We Saw” video (Bob and Bri) wasn’t released until this year, I can’t really include it within this series, but I can assure you – that video, released on 9/11/06, has “perp-fingerprints” all over it.<br /></span></span><br /></p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/BobBri.jpg" border="0" /></a></span><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com95tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1165546050110192152006-12-07T21:46:00.000-05:002007-05-14T09:05:29.817-05:00Richard Davis: 9/11 Eyewitness Report Cards, Installment III<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction –</span> Richard R. Davis<br /></em></strong><br />Now let’s move on to our next “eyewitness,” Richard Davis. Mr. Davis was supposedly in his office on the 39th floor of a building at or near 50th Street and 5th Avenue. This general location is commonly known as Rockefeller Plaza. Due to there being a number of buildings at least that tall in the immediate area, it was difficult to determine exactly which one Richard was in.<br /><br />However, it is precisely this factor which makes his eyewitness account suspect. Richard speaks as though he has a clear view of the World Trade Center from his vantage point on the 39th floor of his building. This eliminates almost every building in Rockefeller Plaza, since there are many tall buildings which would obscure his view.<br /><br />Without actually going to New York myself and looking for myself, my best guess (based on Google Earth) was that Richard Davis was either at 30 Rockefeller Center (GE building) or 630 5th Avenue (International Building).<br /><br />After doing a little digging, I discovered that there is a </span><a href="https://www.bessemer.com/WebSite/PageLoad.asp?PageKey=PersonDisplay&PersonCode=RDAVIS"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Richard R. Davis</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> that works at </span><a href="https://www.bessemer.com/WebSite/PageLoad.asp?PageKey=WelcomeToBT"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Bessemer Trust Company NA</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, which just so happens to operate out of the International Building. This Richard R. Davis holds degrees from both Columbia (MBA) and Yale (LLB). He currently serves as Bessemer’s Managing Director, Secretary and General Counsel.<br /><br />As it turns out, Bessemer has a very prestigious client base. They proudly proclaim to manage over 46 billion dollars for only 1800 clients. 92% of these clients are individuals, accounting for almost 42 billion dollars. A little math tells us that the average individual client is entrusting Bessemer with 25 million dollars.<br /><br />After a little more digging, I found out there just happens to be a Richard R. Davis living at 1185 Park Avenue in New York.<br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p></p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/1185ParkAve.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Now it’s not every day that you Google somebody’s home address and find out there’s been a </span><a href="http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=479623"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">book</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> written about it. Granted, this guy doesn’t have the whole place to himself. According to </span><a href="http://www.thecityreview.com/ues/parkave/park1185.htm"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">this website</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, it’s been broken down into about 185 apartments, although </span><a href="http://www.cityrealty.com/condos/building_iframe.php?lid=6327"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">this website</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> says there are only 167 apartments.<br /><br />FYI, if you’re interested in living here, you’re in luck! A three bedroom space appears to be available for just $3.75 million.<br /><br />Now, before I actually get into my analysis of what Richard told Bryant Gumbel, I want to be clear that up to this point, I have presented you with information about two Richard R. Davis’ who may or may not be the same person. Even if this is the same person, I also haven’t provided a solid link to Richard Davis, the lying “eyewitness.”<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> Keeping up with the Davis’<br /></em></strong><br />I suppose if one were interested enough, one could check out the lobby of the International Building to see if Bessemer is located on the 39th floor. I suppose one could also call Bessemer and ask to speak to Richard R. Davis to determine whether his voice matches the voice from the CBS interview, if one were so inclined to connect the dots.<br /><br />OR – if these options sound like too much work, I suppose one could Google “Bessemer 39th Floor” and retrieve </span><a href="http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.22pT9.htm"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">this SEC document</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> or an earlier one, from which I’ve excerpted the following text:<br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Bessemer39thFloor.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />I suppose after verifying that, one could skip the step of actually talking to Richard at work by simply checking out the <a href="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/RichardDavis.flv">outgoing message</a> on his answering machine at home. </p><p>I have offered this audio as an alternative to inciting the harassment of Mr. Davis, by way of relieving you of the temptation to call the publicly-listed number yourselves. My research was conducted only for the purpose of identification. I am now satisfied that the “eyewitness” who called CBS, the executive at Bessemer Trust, and the individual living on Park Avenue are actually one and the same person – Mr. Richard R. Davis.<br /><br />With my curiosity now quelled, I can now get on with the task of analyzing the actual “eyewitness account” of Richard R. Davis.<br /><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> Richard R. Davis’ “Eyewitness Account”<br /></strong></em><br />From the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdkyk1up4ZA">same video as the last installment</a>, the “eyewitness account” of Richard R. Davis can be heard from 6:10 until about 9:00 Video Run Time (VRT).<br /><br />Once again, the keyword “deliberate” is being employed by an “eyewitness.” By this point, I can only speculate that this keyword was designed to help bridge the gap between an “accident” and a “terrorist attack.”<br /><br />Mr. Davis was much better prepared for Bryant’s “Why do you say it was deliberate?” question than was “Theresa Renault.” From his vantage point 0.8 miles behind the “plane,” he was apparently able to conduct a maintenance evaluation as it flew the remaining 3 miles or so away from him (at an approximate rate of 500mph) until it “struck” WTC1.<br /><br />Right about now is where my recent anonymous comment posters (BG & Fred) are probably starting to get excited about pushing the prospect of an old man getting his “planes” mixed up. After all, this guy could have easily lost track of the “737” he says he saw once it got 4 miles away.<br /><br />While it is believable that Richard could have identified a “two-engine jet” from 0.8 miles away, it is not believable that he could determine that there was nothing wrong with it. It is also questionable as to whether he could have still seen it from 4 miles away.<br /><br />However, once again, I really don’t care about the “first plane” anyway. What makes Richard’s “eyewitness account” so impossible are his statements about the “second plane.” At about 7:50 VRT, Richard declares “We saw the second one come up the Hudson and veer into the second building.”<br /><br />This is truly amazing. Not only were these people able to spot the “second plane” coming toward them from over 4 miles away (remember the 16ft fuselage diameter), once again Richard was able to determine with great certainty that “there appeared to be nothing wrong with the aircraft” and that “it was flown very deliberately into the building.” These statements are absolute hokum. He may as well have stated that he saw the pilot giving him the finger (too bad - that would have saved me the trouble).<br /><br />I’d be curious to have a gander out the window from Richard’s office myself. I wonder exactly how much of his view of the towers would have been obscured by the Empire State Building (or any other buildings for that matter).</p><p></span></p><p><a></p></a><a><p></a></p><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ViewFrom6305thAve.jpg" border="0" /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">Conclusion<br /></span></em></strong><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Unlike Rose Arce, Richard Davis doesn’t appear to be lying about where he was on September 11, 2001.<br /><br />However, due to the fact that there was no plane in the area for Richard to see from his window (proven in “Pinocchio: Part II” article), I have no choice but to conclude that he is lying about seeing the “second plane.” This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that even if there had been a plane in the air, it is a ridiculous notion that he would have been able to both spot it and characterize its behavior from over 4 miles away.<br /><br />If he lied about seeing the “second plane,” how much of a stretch do you suppose it would be to believe he also lied about seeing the “first plane?” While considering this, take into account that due to its proximity to him, the Empire State Building should have obscured much more than it appears to in the the Google Earth image above. His actual view would be much better represented by the image below:</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><br /><br /><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 720px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ViewFrom6305thAveRoof.jpg" border="0" /><br />This vantage point would have hindered him from tracking the "first plane," as he claims to have first "noticed" it "by the time it was passing the Empire State Building."<br /><br />As far as how close Richard Davis’ relationship is to the “9/11 planners,” I’ll leave that up to you to decide for yourselves. I’m guessing he knows quite a bit more than your average 9/11 stooge.<br /><br />Of course, albeit educated – my “guess” is useless without subpoena power. Can I get a show of hands for any takers?</span>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com74tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1165349143432297862006-12-05T15:02:00.000-05:002007-05-14T11:26:32.474-05:00Theresa Renaud: 9/11 Eyewitness Report Cards, Installment II<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Update</span></em></strong></span><br /><strong><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em></strong><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Since I first published this article, it has been divulged to me by Joe Craine (see comments below) that this witness is actually Theresa <strong>Renaud</strong>, the wife of CBS Early Show producer, Jack Renaud. The source of this information is <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/06/earlyshow/main521131.shtml">this CBS News article</a>.</span> <span style="font-family:times new roman;">Thanks, Joe!<br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em></strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction -</span> "Theresa Renault"<br /></em></strong><br />“Theresa Renault” was being interviewed by Bryant Gumbel on CBS at the time of the “second impact.” “Theresa” is explaining to Bryant that she both saw and heard the first explosion at WTC1, although she never actually saw any plane. My searches for Teresa/Theresa Renault in the downtown Manhattan area have come up empty, as the closest I’ve come is Theresa M. Renault, almost 90 miles away in New Paltz, NY.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> "Theresa Renault’s Eyewitness Account”<br /></em></strong><br />“Theresa” claims to have been inside her office at 8th Avenue and 16th Street in Chelsea. According to her, she works in “the tallest building in the area.” According to Google Earth, this places her inside the building at 111 8th Avenue.<br /><br />This building has a </span><a href="http://googlewatch.eweek.com/blogs/google_watch/archive/2006/09/13/13133.aspx"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">fascinating history</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, to go along with its equally intriguing </span><a href="http://www.111eighth.com/tenants.htm"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">tenant list</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, which also now includes Google (Update: tenant list includes Deutsch Advertising, where Theresa was a vice president).<br /><br />Almost as fascinating: once again we have a witness claiming to have heard a “very loud” explosion while indoors from over 2 miles away.<br /><br />Of course, this pales in comparison to what she claims to have been able to observe from her vantage point looking south toward the towers. “Theresa’s eyewitness account” can be heard from 1:40 to 5:40 Video Run Time (VRT) of the following video:<br /><br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p></p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdkyk1up4ZA"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/CBSPart2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Notice how quickly "Theresa" reacts to the second explosion and declares that she saw “another plane.” Keep in mind that she is looking at the towers from the north, and that she’s over 2 miles away.<br /><br />From that angle and distance (if her view wasn’t blocked by buildings), the “plane” would have been difficult to see at best. Yet we are expected to believe that she saw an object that would have been essentially only 16 feet tall from over 2 miles away, and recognized it as a plane.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Remember, she’s supposedly looking out of her office window, without the aid of any camera zoom lens. Right about now is where all my questions start again:<br /><br />If she saw "a plane" so clearly, why doesn’t she react until after the fireball? </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">How could she see “a plane” fly into the south face of WTC2 when she was over 2 miles away to the north? </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Who is telling her what to say at 3:14 VRT? </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Right after this, when she says “and right now… that… yes… that was definitely looked like it was on purpose,” is she watching a video replay only 24 seconds after the explosion?<br /><br />If so, what station is she watching? The earliest replay I found to be shown by any network was at ABC, 54 seconds after the “live” footage was shown. Did she have a TiVo unit in her office? Oh wait, those didn’t come out until 2003. So what was the cause of her hesitation?<br /><br />Getting back to that angle and distance for a second, let's take a quick look at "Theresa's" view from Google Earth:</span></p><p></p><p><br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 360px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ViewFrom1118thAve.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />This angle looks kinda familiar to me... hmm... does it look similar to the angle in the screenshot below that almost every network showed at one point?</p><br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 360px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Stock911Angle.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><p>If you can't see it, maybe getting right up on the roof of that building will help:<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 360px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ViewFrom1118thAveRooftop.jpg" border="0" /></a></p><p>Okay, this is my last try. I zoomed-in from the roof, added WTC7 for reference, and placed it side-by-side with the stock screenshot:</p><p><table><tbody><tr><td><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; WIDTH: 350px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: left" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Stock911Angle.jpg" border="0" /></a></td><td><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; WIDTH: 350px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: right" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ZoomWithWTC7.jpg" border="0" /></a></td></tr></tbody></table></p><p></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Of course, it's not perfect and the aspect ratio is a little off - but it sure is close. The building spans an entire block too, so the angle could be slightly different - depending on where they may have placed the cameras.<br /><br />BTW, if you didn't read the entire history link, here's an excerpt from it that may be relevant:</p></span><p><span style="font-family:arial;color:#3333ff;">"Fascinating tidbit: 111 8th Avenue used to be an old media headquarters"</span> </p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Sorry for that little aside - I thought it was worth mentioning. Now back to "Theresa's eyewitness account:"</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">As much flack as Bryant Gumbel has taken for his inability put things together as quickly as the rest of the media anchors, he asks “Theresa” a very good question: “Why do you say that was definitely on purpose?”<br /><br />This “answer” was the best she could do: “It’s because… it just… it just flew straight into it. There’s not… it didn’t look like it was… ah… and it didn’t look like a commercial jet. It was a smaller plane. It was definitely a smaller plane.”<br /><br />This is clearly not an “eyewitness” answering a question. This is an example of a woman being instructed what to say.<br /><br />Perhaps the most telling quote of all: “It hit another building… flew right into the middle of it! Explosion!”<br /><br />I can clearly picture the guy holding up the “Explosion” cue card in my mind’s eye. Either that or she realized that she forgot that she was supposed to say that word earlier. People just don’t talk like that… but they do they read like that.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusion</span><br /></em></strong><br />“Theresa Renault” did not see a plane crash into WTC2 through her office window. If she did see a “plane,” she saw the “live” CGI insertion on TV – just like the rest of us who weren’t there.<br /><br />In my opinion, it could not be more obvious that she had people with her to “help” her answer Bryant Gumbel’s questions.<br /><br />I was pleasantly surprised at how well Bryant did his job on that day, in spite of his apparent vision issues. I suppose I should also make the point that Daryn Kagan (from my previous article) was also asking meaningful and intelligent questions over at CNN. Unfortunately, the only information Rose Arce was able to provide (from wherever she was) was a traffic report.<br /><br />This indicates to me that not all media personnel were aware of the hoax at the time. Of course, unless they live in a cave, they must surely know the truth by now.<br /><br />Just to clarify, “Theresa Renault” is the first “eyewitness” I've analyzed in this series who lied on 9/11/01 about seeing a plane (Rose Arce didn’t lie about that until CNN’s tribute DVD was recorded). </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Based on the timing of her statement “and right now… that… yes… that was definitely looked like it was on purpose,” I'm guessing she really was looking at a replay before any of us could. This would make perfect sense if she were right next to the equipment they were using to review the replay before approving it for rebroadcast. </p></span><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">It's a shame that I haven't been able to identify who "Theresa Renault" really is, and who she was working for at the time. After her "performance," I'd be surprised if she's still alive today. As bad as it was, they may have thrown her off the roof as soon as she hung up the phone.</span></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Based on the next “eyewitness” I will be presenting, you may begin to notice a pattern with regard to where these “eyewitnesses” were calling from. If you skipped over the building history and tenant list links I provided earlier, you may want to go back and have a look.<br /><br />I’m sure there’s much more information on that building than what I’ve posted, so feel free to dig deeper if you find yourself to be intrigued. I'd also appreciate any ideas with regard to "Theresa's" identity. The only other spelling of the last name I can think of is "Reno," and I came up empty on that one as well.</span></p><p>Update: Currently researching Theresa Renaud. Is this potentially the same individual who is currently a marketing director at Summit Systems Inc. since 2001. Strangely, Zoominfo seems to indicate that she's a <a href="http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=239274868">Senior VP at CBS</a> (then again, Zoominfo also lists Jack Renaud as working for Deutsch Advertising).</p><p>Deutsch Advertising founder? Donny Deutsch. Donny interviewed Jim Fetzer in August, 2006 - no mention of Theresa Renaud. YouTube video of interview has been removed.</p><p>Donny sold Deutsch Advertising to IPG in 2000, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donny_Deutsch">according to Wikipedia</a>.</p><p>Is <a href="http://www.bellmarc.com/agents/profile.asp?id=TMR">this</a> the same Theresa Renaud?</span></p>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com69tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1164963477266299532006-12-01T03:38:00.000-05:002007-05-14T09:06:58.522-05:00Rose Arce: 9/11 Eyewitness Report Cards, Installment I<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Series Introduction<br /></span></em></strong><br />I have been itching to get to this “Eyewitness Report Card” series for some time now. There are so many obvious holes in so many ridiculous eyewitness accounts that are just begging to be pointed out. In fact, after having spent months carefully compiling a long list of lying "eyewitnesses," I could very well spend an entire year on this series and still only scratch the surface of this list.<br /><br />However, deconstructing every single eyewitness account offered up on 9/11/01 represents an exercise as daunting as it is redundant. And so to help ease this task, I needed to pare the list of candidates down to a reasonable number. For now, the simplest way to do this was to eliminate the "first plane eyewitnesses."<br /><br />Unfortunately, this temporarily absolves some of the people I was most looking forward to leading off this series with, such as Sean Murtagh, “Rosa Cardona Rivera,” and my old punching bag “Jim Friedl.” Sadly, these “eyewitnesses” must be set on the back-burner for the time being.<br /><br />The reason I have chosen to focus on the “second plane eyewitnesses” is because there is now irrefutable proof that the “second plane” was a CGI. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone who wasn’t watching television on that day to have seen anything strike WTC2.<br /><br />Although people who were in downtown Manhattan that day may have somehow mistakenly identified what struck WTC1 as some form of commercial aircraft, it is now a proven fact that the “eyewitnesses” who said they saw the “second plane” were blatantly lying.<br /><br />And so, with my priorities now set – I can begin to “grade” my first “eyewitness”<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Rose Marie Arce –</span> Introduction</em></strong><br /><br />After careful consideration, I’ve decided to lead off this series with Rose Arce. At the time, Rose was a CNN Producer. Apparently, she has since been promoted to a Senior Producer. What makes Rose such a compelling “eyewitness” is that her story has morphed over time.<br /><br />Before I go any further, I think it is important to recognize that while we have good reason to be angry at the mainstream media for ignoring the complete 9/11 truth, whether we choose to be angry at individual reporters, anchors, and producers depends on our own personal value system.<br /><br />Perhaps I should illustrate this point with a hypothetical scenario:<br /><br />Imagine you were offered 15 minutes of airtime on the “XYZ National News” to divulge everything you know about 9/11. There are only 3 terms that come with the offer:<br /><br />1.) You can say anything you want in that 15 minute time span<br />2.) After you finish, you will never work again<br />3.) During the entire 15 minutes, you must play the Solitaire version of “Russian Roulette”<br /><br />That is essentially what every media employee risks if they were to ever try to expose the truth behind 9/11. That decision involves definite career suicide, potential “actual” suicide, and the very real possibility that the general public is already too brainwashed to take them seriously.<br /><br />Try “googling” April Oliver and/or Jack Smith if you want to see the precedent that was set prior to 9/11 for what happens to people who report news that the government doesn’t want us to see and hear.<br /><br />Of course, I don’t know enough about Operation Tailwind to declare whether the story was right or wrong. All I know is that CNN reacted to government/military pressure and retracted the story without a proper investigation (and settled every subsequent lawsuit as quietly as possible).<br /><br />Getting back on track, my point was that a precedent had been set. April and Jack were ousted from the industry, never to work in broadcasting again.<br /><br />Having gotten that disclaimer out of the way, I will ultimately leave it up to you to decide whether you think Rose is lying to save her career/life, whether she’s lying because she thinks she’s good at it, or whether she’s intentionally lying badly enough to leave us with easy clues to follow on our quest for truth.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis<br /></span></em></strong><br />For my analysis, I will be using four different sources to represent the “story” of Rose Arce. Two of these are in video format (one provided + one transcript), and two come from articles.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> As it Happened</em></strong><br /><br />The first video is from ground zero after the WTC2 explosions. In the clip below, Rose is interviewed by Daryn Kagan for about 2 minutes (conveniently picking up where we left off with Winston Mitchell from the previous article), from Video Run Time (VRT) 3:30 to 5:30.<br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p></p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZRHT9Dp-Ks"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/CNNPart4.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />In actuality, this isn’t an eyewitness account at all, which is why I found it to be so interesting. Sure, she is talking about what is going on at 9:23am – but notice that she never mentions seeing any “plane” herself just 20 minutes before this interview.<br /><br />Instead, she specifically says “… and when <strong><em>they</em></strong> saw the second plane…” (more on this “quote” later).<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> America Remembers</em></strong><br /><br />Now let’s fast forward to CNN’s “America Remembers” tribute DVD. Due to possible copyright infringement, the best source I can offer here is <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/17/cp.00.html"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">the CNN transcript of this DVD</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">. In this video, Rose suddenly seems to have become one of “they,” as she now recollects:<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">"I got within a few blocks of the World Trade Center when suddenly there was this second sort of, um, roar that came out of the sky and everyone just looked right up and another plane came and just barreled into the other tower."<br /></span><br /><br />So - was she really an eyewitness? Interesting that although she insinuates that she saw the plane, she still doesn’t actually say that. This “trick” is easier to see when we break this quote down into four distinct sentences:<br /><br />I got within a few blocks of the World Trade Center.<br />Suddenly there was this second sort of, um, roar that came out of the sky.<br />Everyone just looked right up.<br />Another plane came and just barreled into the other tower.<br /><br />So, did Rose hear the roar or was it just “there?” Did she look up from inside the car she was in, or was she not including herself when she says “everyone?” Did she actually see a plane, or did it just “come?”<br /><br />Ah, the lost art of language: How to say something without really saying anything. So far, that’s exactly what Rose has managed to do. She’s obviously not going to lie about seeing a plane on camera, so let’s move… wait a minute… there’s more?<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">“I looked up and the first thing I thought is my God a plane is flying so low in a big city with these tall buildings. What's it doing so low? There was a schoolyard across the street and I remember there were kids that were being evacuated from the schoolyard and one of the girls looked up in the sky and she said to her father: "Daddy, look they're doing it on purpose."<br /></span></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br />(So much for her not lying about seeing a plane on camera)<br /><br />Anyway, as I was starting to say, let’s move on to the articles, shall we?<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis -</span> </em></strong></span><a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_200301/ai_n9224224/pg_1"><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em>Newspaper Research Journal (Winter 2003)</em></strong></span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:85%;">After she got her coffee, she heard on NPR radio that something happened at the World Trade Center. "It sounded ominous. I immediately flipped on my cell phone and called the office. I said, 'I heard about the World Trade Center. Where do you want me to go because I'm going to start running downtown?' Whoever answered the phone said, 'Just go, go, go and call us when you get there.'"</span><br /></span><br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">From the outset of this article, <strong>notice where Rose was and how she learned about the events going on at the towers</strong>. She then goes on in greater detail about how she actually got downtown:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">Rose lives near Horatio and Washington, which make a straight line down to the Trade Center. "I started running south, and people were just standing in the street, looking up. I got about two blocks and could see the building on fire." An African-American woman, who Rose said she would never forget, came by in a black Lexus. She knocked on her window and flashed the press ID hanging around her neck. "I said, 'Hey, I'm with CNN. Please give a ride downtown.' I jumped into her car, and she took me down a few blocks from the Trade Center," she said.<br /></span></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">First of all, from that far away, there would be no need to "look up" to see the top of the towers. Second, notice how the article continues to mix direct quotes from Rose in with their printed version of her story. Is this intentional, or were the authors just cleaning up what Rose actually said? Hard to say for now, so let’s keep going a little further – I’ll help keep track of Rose’s actual words by <span style="color:#3333ff;">highlighting them</span>:<br /><br /></span></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Her cell phone had stopped working, so she ducked into a deli to use the phone to call CNN. Then, she started running farther south with a swarm of people coming at her. <span style="color:#3333ff;">"It was like a weird movie. People were running in business suits, all with cell phones trying to talk as they were running. I was running against the traffic. My intention was to get inside the North Tower because that is what I did in 1993. Then there was this hum, like when the subway is passing underneath me, except that it was in the air."</span><br />As she was being pummeled by people running past her, she saw a little girl nearby who was screaming, "Daddy, Daddy! They are doing it on purpose!" First, there was a loud sound, and then a plane came out of nowhere and <span style="color:#3333ff;">"just slammed into the building."</span> She still had her cell phone in her hand and was frantically trying to dial CNN. But, she just kept getting a busy signal</span>.<br /></span></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br />Here we go again. “There was a hum in the air,” but did she hear it? What exactly “just slammed into the building” if not “a plane?” How could she possibly have phrased that sentence in such as way as to not allow “a plane” to be placed within that quote? At least from here we learn that she doesn't expect us to believe she saw the "second plane" from inside a car. So far, it appears from this article that this woman is incapable of passing by a deli without going inside.</span> <p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Pausing for a moment for a time recap: Fifteen minutes was the maximum time lapse between any news report of the "first plane" and the "appearance" of the "second plane." Let's see, take away 5 minutes of first deli delay time (including a call to CNN and running a block or two), 5 minutes of second deli phone time - that's 10 minutes, leaving only 5 minutes of hitchhiking/drive time in order to get her there in time to see the "second plane." Five minutes? On that day? In that traffic? Surely, for the story to be true, my "deli time" estimates must be wrong...<br /><br />Moving on, we start to get a sense of Rose’s true ability to “bend the truth.” In her video interview with Daryn Kagan, she creates the illusion that she is (in Daryn’s words) “on the ground there near the World Trade Center.” Yet, in this article – after being “pummeled” by people running from the scene, she leaves the “ground” and enters the apartment of Jim and Julie Huibregtse.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:85%;">As CNN showed live pictures of the Towers smoking in the distance, Rose described what she was witnessing. She could either stay where she had a phone or try to get closer to the scene. <span style="color:#3333ff;">"I was frantic to get inside the building. I was only two or three blocks away. But, I couldn't because my phone wasn't working. So, I stayed at this guy's phone. When I finally got through to Atlanta, they were so panicked. They would suddenly throw me on air again with the anchor. I kept stretching the phone cord and saying, 'You won't believe what I'm looking at.'"</span></span><br /></span></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br />She never does get her cell phone to work, so she is actually indoors during the Daryn Kagan interview. Now might be a good time to go back and listen to that interview again (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZRHT9Dp-Ks">quick link</a>).<br /><br />Notice how Rose can’t answer any of Daryn’s questions, such as “Do you have anybody with you right now that could talk about being inside the World Trade Center when this happened?” Instead of answering Daryn's question, Rose replies “Right now, honestly, there are scores of people that are literally running by me…”<br /><br />In fact, up to this point of the article, Rose has given us no clear indication of having spoken to anyone who was inside either one of the towers. So where then, did she get her Kagan-interview “quotes” from?<br /><br />Did she forget to mention all the people she must have interviewed in order for her to be able to report their "comments" to us? Specifically (from the video link above):<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">“…many of them were inside the building when they felt the explosion and they say there was just pandemonium. There was no warning, no alarms, no anything. Everyone just raced from their desks, ran downstairs, and now there is a steady stream of folks running away from the building – some people saying that they’re fearing there will be another explosion, and when they saw the second plane, convinced that this was dangerous - there’s just an absolute flood of folks escaping downtown Manhattan right now.”</span><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br />Is it just me, or does anybody else think she just made that stuff up? I mean, what kind of a moron would tell Rose that they would expect alarms to warn them that a plane was about to crash into their tower?<br /><br />Also, remember that this is only 20 minutes after the “second plane impact,” and that Rose was *supposedly* 2-3 blocks away from the towers. It had to take at least 5 to 10 minutes to introduce herself to Jim and Julie and figure out the whole “speaker phone ordeal.”<br /><br />How did all these “running folk” manage to see the “second plane” (that wasn’t there) if they were all running to the north? Even if they had started 35 minutes earlier (after the “first plane impact”), how many floors up could they have been to be able to get 3 blocks away to interview with Rose within 25 minutes (since she would have had to have gone indoors 10 minutes before the Kagan interview)?<br /><br />Of course, that only matters if she even was 3 blocks away. I certainly hope for her sake that Jim and Julie moved since that day, because the only address listing for any Huibregtse in the area is <a href="http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&do=nw&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;rmm=1&un=m&cl=EN&ct=NA&rsres=1&1ffi=&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;1l=&1g=&1pl=&1v=&1n=&2ffi=&2l=&2g=&2pl=&2v=&2n=&1pn=&1a=54+Greene+St,+Frnt+4N&1c=new+york&1s=ny&1z=&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;2pn=&2a=1+World+Trade+Center&2c=new+york&2s=ny&2z=&r=f"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">1.75 miles away</span></a> (not exactly the <a href="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/54GreenSt.jpg">best view</a> from there, either - unless you're on the roof).<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><br />I think you get my drift when I refer to Rose’s ability to “bend the truth.” So let’s move on to the final article I managed to dig up and see what else we can find.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> Reporting from Ground Zero</em></strong><br /><br />The opening sentence of </span><a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/arce.focus/index.html"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">this article</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, written by Rose Arce herself on 9/12/01 pretty much says it all:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><strong><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;">“I was in my apartment in downtown Manhattan when I heard a tremendous explosion. I ran to the street with my cell phone, and started moving south.”</span></strong><br /></p><p>What happened to that trip to the deli after observing a beautiful day? Before we start assuming that the Adiletto family paid her off to promote their deli in her revised story, let’s take a minute to evaluate how reasonable this original claim is.<br /><br />According to the last article I referenced, Rose’s apartment was near Horatio and Washington. The address of the Adiletto Deli is 812 Washington St. According to <a href="http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;do=nw&rmm=1&un=m&cl=EN&ct=NA&rsres=1&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;1ffi=&1l=&1g=&1pl=&1v=&1n=&2ffi=&2l=&2g=&2pl=&2v=&2n=&1pn=&1a=812+washington+st&1c=new+york&1s=ny&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;1z=&2pn=&2a=1+World+Trade+Center&2c=new+york&2s=ny&2z=&r=f"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Mapquest</a>, that’s 2.32 miles from the World Trade Center.<br />How reasonable does it seem that the explosion was so loud that it could be deemed to be “tremendous” from an indoor location that was 2.32 miles away? I think it would be far more reasonable to believe that she may have felt the seismic wave caused by the basement explosion.<br /><br />Speaking of reasonable, I find it extremely difficult to believe that she intended to run all the way to the towers? Does she not own a car? Are there no taxis in New York? How does she usually get to work?<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusion</span></em></strong><br /><br />There are so many inconsistencies in Rose Arce’s “eyewitness accounts,” I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that she wasn’t even in New York on September 11, 2001.<br /><br />She obviously didn’t see the “second plane,” because it didn’t exist. I find it difficult to believe that she had time to talk to anybody that was inside either tower, especially if the address of the Huibregtse’s hasn’t changed.<br /><br />According to Columbia University, Rose graduated from Barnard College in 1986. I find it extremely unlikely that she would happen upon “a resume from a kid that had gone to my college who was applying for a job to work in the World Trade Center.”<br /><br />Barnard is a women’s college. Even given the age difference, wouldn’t she refer to this person as “a girl” instead of “a kid?” My guess is, perhaps Rose embellished upon her original story of finding “this woman’s resume” because she was jealous of the government’s hijacker passport whopper?<br /><br />As you can see, I have more questions than answers here. All I know is that I haven’t found a single verifiable truth in Rose Arce’s constantly-changing story. Somehow, she managed to get promoted to Senior Producer at CNN. Given the source material I’ve reviewed here, the only things I’ve observed her producing are lies and embellishments.<br /><br />Perhaps it’s time for Columbia to demote Rose from her current alumni ranking (184th) among the “</span><a href="http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=611928150&page_url=//www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/05/403928fc73f36&page_last_updated=2/22/2004+5:48:50+PM&firstName=Rose&lastName=Arce"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Greatest 250 Columbia Alumni</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">.”<br /></span></span></p></span></span>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com84tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1164066413820008062006-11-20T18:29:00.000-05:002006-11-24T09:15:12.213-05:009/11 CNN Pipeline: As (the media wants you to think) it Happened<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Introduction<br /></em></strong></span><br />On September 11, 2006 - CNN admittedly did not rebroadcast everything that was originally aired five years earlier. I’m not sure what their exact disclaimer was about missing footage – something like “it got lost in the confusion of a very hectic day” or something to that effect.<br /><br />And so every once in a while, seemingly at random (yeah, right…), anyone watching CNN Pipeline that day got to see this: </span><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span><br /><br /><br /><br /><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Disclaimer.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Whether this was their intention or not, what that did (for me, anyway) was to call greater attention to the contents of this “lost” footage, thereby setting me on a quest to both identify and scrutinize the missing footage of the “reenactment” more closely.<br /><br />After just having obtained a copy of the CNN Pipeline “reenactment” as of this morning, I have only been able to perform a brief analysis thus far. However, even in the brief two hours I’ve had to perform this analysis, I felt that my observations and early conclusions were important enough to publish “on the fly.”<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> Footage from 8:49am to 10:00am</em></strong><br /><br />This is as far as I’ve gotten thus far. Whenever I analyze any 9/11 footage, I am careful to keep in mind the possibility of either edited or missing footage.<br /><br />In the case of missing footage, this is an extremely easy task, especially if you are privy to a copy of the Pipeline footage that includes segments of the “Be Back Soon” graphic I posted above. In order to maintain the real-time aspect of the Pipeline “reenactment,” this standard “disclaimer-substitute” was inserted into the footage, essentially acting as a time placeholder.<br /><br />The copy of the CNN Pipeline footage that I have obtained does not include the “Be Back Soon” segments, so I had to pay attention for the “fade-outs,” “hard cuts,” or “time skips” in order to identify the missing segments.<br /><br />Missing footage is relatively easy to observe anyway when it comes to most videos, due to the “live” time usually being a component of the “bottom third” graphic (almost always on the bottom right of the frame).<br /><br />Working backwards in the Pipeline footage (not provided here), I noted a Video Run Time (VRT) of 1:09:44 at 10:00:00am. At 9:00:00am, the VRT was 0:09:44, indicating no footage was skipped. The time displayed in the “bottom third” at the inception of the footage is 8:49. This changes to 8:50 at 0:00:31 VRT, indicating that the footage begins at 8:49:35, after accounting for the opening 6-second “Viewer Discretion is Advised” disclaimer.<br /><br />So somewhere between 8:50 and 9:00, 47 seconds of footage was “lost” (9:44 - 0:31 = 9:13, 47 seconds less than 10 minutes).<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> Missing 47 Seconds</em></strong><br /><br />What has been cut out can be seen and heard between 5:12 and 5:59 VRT of the following video (in real time, that’s between 8:54:48am and 8:55:35am):</span><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cUEcgQiEWk"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/CNNPart1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">An easy assumption to make may be that CNN has cut this footage because of it's reference to the “eyewitness” account of “Rosa Cardona Rivera.”<br /><br />However, aside from providing yet another example of an unbelievable set of circumstances that led to an individual “witnessing” the first “plane,” I found there to be no reason for CNN to specifically cut this part out. After all, her entire "eyewitness" account was only aired on FOX (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YOu2Qy0A0s">Friedlgate video</a>).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">If anything, one would think that they would want to keep this segment of footage to help assert as quickly as possible that there was someone other than Sean Murtagh who had seen the first plane (much more info available on Sean Murtagh in my upcoming “Eyewitness” Report Card articles).<br /><br />There are two obvious (and related) reasons why they chose to cut this segment of footage:<br /><br /><strong>1.)</strong> Dick Oliver was behaving like a real reporter! Not only was he unable to find anyone on the street who would say that they saw a plane, he had actually just interviewed a woman who clearly gave no indication that she had seen or heard a plane. She also stated her firm belief that what she saw was an explosion that originated from the inside if the building, since everything was being “blown out.”<br /><br /><strong>2.)</strong> Jim Ryan makes a ridiculous statement, probably at the urging of the producer who had just “pulled the plug” on Dick Oliver. After a short delay, Jim stammers “…our transmitter is at the top of the World Trade Center, so we apparently (uh) have consequently lost contact with Dick Oliver.”<br /><br />Apparently, Jim (or his producer) would have us believe that Dick has his own dedicated transmitter. Listen closely to Jim after the Dick Oliver feed has been yanked. Jim is noticeably trying to listen to his producer’s instructions before being forced to lie about why they just “lost” Dick.<br /><br />Obviously, if they had lost their transmitter, Jim himself wouldn’t be on the air, now would he?<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis –</span> Additional Observations</em></strong><br /><br />There are two other observations that stand out in my mind as being noteworthy.<br /><br />The first is tied to this missing 47 seconds of footage, but has apparently not been cut out of the CNN Pipeline footage. At 15:05 VRT, which represents to 9:05:21am, Steve Bartelstein (WABC Anchor) realizes that Winston Mitchell is no longer on the line. Steve then tries to ask his producer “Do we have an eyewitness who perhaps sees better than we do from these pictures..?”<br /><br />After a very brief pause, an audio feed is opened up – and we hear somebody say (angrily) <a href="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ComeOnDick.flv">“Come on, Di…” </a><br /><br />By itself this appears to be a random interjection. However, when pieced together with the missing 47 seconds and placed into the context of Steve Bartelstein trying to speak to his producer, I come up with the following:<br /><br />Steve’s producer (or someone in the direct vicinity) is either arguing on the phone with Dick Oliver or is wondering aloud as to his whereabouts. My contention is that were it not cut off so quickly, we would have heard the remainder of the exclamation: “Come on, Dick!”<br /><br />That Dick might have been angry about having been yanked off the air by FOX and consequently petitioning for airtime from a WABC producer is a matter of pure speculation. Furthermore, it isn’t really all that important – that is, unless we’re trying to figure out where the media hoax “headquarters” may have been.<br /><br />My second observation is a much more obvious one, now that I have been able to see and hear the WABC feed in its entirety. It pertains to the eyewitness account of Winston Mitchell. The live version of this testimony falls within the 20 minute gap between Part 1 and Part 4 of the YouTube “CNN: September 11 - As it Happened” videos, as posted by “goatpussy.” </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Switching now to Part 4, we at least can pick up the “replay” of his eyewitness account. Starting at 2:25 VRT, pay close attention to the information that Winston is relaying to Steve at precisely the moment that the explosion occurs:</span><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span><br /><br /></p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZRHT9Dp-Ks"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/CNNPart4.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">By starting the replayed footage from this carefully-planned point, CNN has managed to cut out the most important detail of this account; that being, how Winston was acquiring his information.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, Winston was standing outside WT1 on the north side, looking directly up at the hole at the same time the “second plane” supposedly hit WTC2. How then, could he not have seen or heard this massive plane? Furthermore, how did WE not hear it either by way of his phone?<br /><br />The answer, of course – is because there was no plane. My previous article has already proven that in an iron-clad manner. This is merely “icing on the cake,” as it were.<br /><br />I’m not going to waste my time trying to post the source footage that proves where Winston was and what he saw and heard. This is because I’m sure it would be yanked from YouTube as quickly as the original Part 2 and Part 3 of the CNN footage seems to have been.<br /><br />Instead, I have posted the relevant excerpt from the </span><a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">CNN transcript</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> of the entire eyewitness account below.<br /><br />Please note that the “UNIDENTIFIED MALE” was fully identified on-screen in the original video feed as Winston Mitchell, and that the “UNIDENTIFIED WABC REPORTER” is actually (scandal-magnet) WABC Anchor, Steve Bartelstein. Also, to make for easier reading, I’ve highlighted the basis for my conclusions <strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">(blue)</span></strong>, and corrected the transcript <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">(<s>red</s></span><span style="color:#33cc00;"> </span><span style="color:#009900;">green)</span></strong>:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">We are going to join another one of our New York affiliates, WABC for their live coverage.<br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... plane overhead, and then all of a sudden -- I thought it sounded kind of loud, and then I looked up and all of a sudden it smashed right dead into the center of the World Trade Center. A big flash of flame, fire coming out from all over, then all the bricks -- it's a huge hole right now. It almost Looks like the plane probably went through. I'm not sure.<br /><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong>UNIDENTIFIED <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"><s>MALE</s></span> <span style="color:#009900;">WABC REPORTER</span></strong>: Winston (ph), can you see -- are you on the north side there where the plane made contact?</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong></strong></span><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I am.</strong></span><br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"><s>MALE</s></span> <span style="color:#009900;">WABC REPORTER</span></strong>: Now, when you say a huge hole, one of our earliest witnesses, Libby Clark (ph), said not much of the plane came down off the building, much of it went...<br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, it went totally into the building.<br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"><s>MALE</s></span> <span style="color:#009900;">WABC REPORTER</span></strong>: It's in the building, from what you can see?<br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, yes.<br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"><s>MALE</s></span> <span style="color:#009900;">WABC REPORTER</span></strong>: Now, can you see if there is a lot of debris downstairs, Winston?<br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, because it looks like it's inverted. With the impact everything went inside the building.<br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"><s>MALE</s></span> <span style="color:#009900;">WABC REPORTER</span></strong>: Inside?<br /><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The only thing that came out was a little bit of the outside awning. But I'd say the huge -- the hole is -- let me just get a better look right now. </strong></span><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong></strong></span><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong>UNIDENTIFIED <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"><s>MALE</s></span> <span style="color:#009900;">WABC REPORTER</span></strong>: OK, go ahead. </strong></span><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;"><strong></strong></span><br /><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd say the whole takes about -- It looks like six, seven floors were taken out. And there's more explosions right now -- hold on -- people are running, hold on.</span></strong><br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"><s>MALE</s></span> <span style="color:#009900;">WABC REPORTER</span></strong>: <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"><s>We should</s></span></strong> <strong><span style="color:#009900;">Winston,</span></strong> hold on just a moment. We've got an explosion inside...<br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The building's exploding right now. You've got people running up the street. Hold on, I'll tell you what's going on.<br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"><s>MALE</s></span> <span style="color:#009900;">WABC REPORTER</span></strong>: OK, just put Winston on pause there for just a moment...<br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, the whole building exploded some more, the whole top part. The building's still intact, people are running up the street. Am I still connected?<br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;"><s>MALE</s></span> <span style="color:#009900;">WABC REPORTER</span></strong>: Winston, this would support probably what Libby and you both said that perhaps the fuselage was in the building, that would cause a second explosion such as that.<br /><br />UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, that's what just happened then.</span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis -</span></em></strong> <strong><em>Bonus Insert (Replay Transcript) </em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Notice how Winston's eyewitness account in the replay was "chopped" in the Part 4 footage. There is nothing arbitrary about the starting point of the replay. They didn't just start it from when they switched camera feeds, either. They removed as much of the context as they could before showing the "impact."</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Now let's have a look at what they did to the transcript of this replay (same link as above, farther down the page). This time, rather than correct the errors, I've just <strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">highlighted</span></strong> them (along with adding <strong><span style="color:#009900;">omissions</span></strong>):</span></p><p><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)</span></p><p><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I say the <span style="color:#000000;">w</span>hole takes about -- <span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>we saw</strong></span> six, seven floors were taken out, and there's more explosions right now. Hold on, people are running! Hold on!</span></p><p><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">UNIDENTIFIED WABC REPORTER: (<span style="color:#009900;"><strong>Winston,</strong></span>) Hold on just a moment. We've got an explosion inside.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The building is exploding right now. You've got people running up the street. Hold on, I'll tell you what's going on.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">UNIDENTIFIED WABC REPORTER: OK, just put Winston on pause there for just a moment. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The whole building just exploded some more, the whole top part. The building's still intact people are running up the street. Am I still connected? </span></p><p><span style="font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:85%;">UNIDENTIFIED WABC REPORTER: Winston, this would support probably what Libby and you both said, that perhaps the fuselage was in the building that would cause a second explosion, such as that. <span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>That's what just happened then. </strong></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Do you suppose it's a coincidence that they changed "It looks like" into "we saw?" Even in the transcript, they're trying to place Winston's account into the past tense, trying to remove any idea that he was looking right at the WTC1 hole (or whole, as they call it) at the time of the explosion.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Just a random typo? Transcriber didn't hear it right? Hardly. This is clearly a case of malicious intent.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">As far as the second error goes, why not go as far as attributing "That's just what happened then" to Bartelstein? After all, he pretty much shoved that idea into Winston's head anyway.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Conclusion<br /></em></strong></span><br />I personally find it hilarious that the entirety of the 47 seconds cut from this segment of CNN’s footage came from our good friends over at WNYW FOX5. Given the total number of screw-ups from this one source; if I didn’t know any better, I’d think they were doing it on purpose.<br /><br />I could go on at length about how CNN has both cut and transcribed this footage in such a way as to deliberately deceive us. I have yet to decide whether this practice of “deceitful editing” is better or worse than simply withholding information from us altogether.<br /><br />For now, I have to call it a tie.<br /><br />And as if that weren’t bad enough, at the end of the ABC interview excerpt – we actually observe the eyewitness allowing the <strong>ABC ANCHOR</strong> to tell <strong><em>HIM</em></strong> what “just happened.”</span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;">This is a Pipeline all right - a sewage Pipeline. I've found all this "crap" already just in the first hour or so of the "story framing" process. I haven't even had a chance yet to look for the video-editing I'm sure to find (which is why I've consistently been referring this "re-aired" footage as a "9/11 reenactment"). </span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Reference</span><br /></em></strong></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oooyweDGrVk">Rare Footage (9:00am to 9:10am)</a> </span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-8Y8dH5kwo"><p></a><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-8Y8dH5kwo">Rare Footage (9:10am to 9:20am)</a><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-8Y8dH5kwo"><br /></p></span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-8Y8dH5kwo"></a>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com142tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1163810630656894072006-11-17T19:38:00.000-05:002006-11-24T09:01:28.113-05:009/11 TV-Fakery Whistleblower: Pinocchio Exposes Nose-Out Fairy Tale – Part II: The Cover-Up<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Part I Highlights</em></strong></span><br /><br />Before we move on to the cover-up, let’s quickly go over a couple of the findings in Part I that are critical factors to take into account when analyzing any one of the many “2nd hit videos,” such as those found at <a href="http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html">Killtown’s page.</a><br /><br />When analyzing any “live” video that was aired on 9/11/01, you must take into consideration that the inserted CGI moves relative to the frame boundaries rather than the objects captured within the frame. This fact alone proves that the object is neither real nor a hologram, since the motion of both of these “entities” would be relative to the objects captured within the frame.<br /><br />In the Friedlgate footage, this object moves and behaves exactly as a live CGI insertion would, when we consider that the frame boundaries have shifted relative to the towers. This “behavior” includes characteristics such as “velocity” and “descent rate” in addition to the observed “nose-out” phenomenon.<br /><br />We may also be able to observe this same correlation in later “photoshopped” videos as well (depending on the video editor’s attention-to-detail regarding his/her perceived stability of the footage). Rather than go into detail here about how this correlation can be performed, I will include a sample methodology in the Reference section for any interested video analysts.<br /><br />One final note that cannot be overemphasized was made in Part I. The fact that there is no hole in the exit face that would accommodate an object of this size proves that the object cannot be real. </span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">According to someone calling himself heiho1, who commented after reading Part I of this article, this is an incorrect statement. His basis for declaring that? That he and the letsroll911.org crew had already reached the conclusion "...that it was most likely a pyrophoric material like uranium or similarly active heavy metals,..." which “…could easily, upon exposure to oxygen in the air, burn through steel and concrete.”<br /><br />Of course, for that to be true, there would have to be missing sections of steel and/or concrete – which there are most certainly neither in any photo or video.<br /><br />For the record, I also just noticed (between writing Part I and Part II) and therefore <a href="http://911blogger.com/node/2564">must give due credit to Killtown for pointing this out at 911blogger well over TWO MONTHS AGO</a> (09/06/06).<br /><br />Expounding on what Killtown concluded: Due to there being no hole in WTC2 to account for any protrusion that size, the object we clearly observe in all these videos (“live” or otherwise) is clearly not a solid material of any kind.<br /><br />Unless someone is desperate enough to start claiming it was a liquid or a gas that flowed around the still-intact steel beams and then formed itself into the approximate size and shape of a plane, we can pretty much rule out anything real altogether.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction –</span> Example of Learning from Mistakes</em></strong><br /><br />Upon further analysis, I actually centered my circle in the wrong place when I attempted to point out where the WTC2 “exit-hole” would have been had this “nose-out” actually been anything real. In the revised graphic below, the corrected circle is shown in green (original is in red): </span><br /><br /><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/WhatHoleFixed.jpg" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br />This correction is based on the observable “nose-out” elevation in many videos (many later examples), along with the picture below, which can be found on page 10 of <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf">this NIST document.</a> </span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/FromNISTpg10.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis -</span> <strong><em>Necessity is The Mother of All Invention</em></strong><br /><br />In realizing my original error, the discovery of this new graphic allowed me to visualize the intent of the desired pattern much more clearly.<br /><br />During my frame-by-frame analysis of all footage filmed from the north, I noticed that without exception, there are two separate “exit-face” explosions that merge to form one huge fireball. Until I saw this picture (and many others in NIST’s various reports), it never dawned on me that based on their spacing and their independent elevations, these explosions were obviously supposed to represent the separate fuel tanks spewing flaming kerosene forward due to its (would-be) momentum.<br /><br />Here is where the perps showed their ability to improvise:<br /><br />Because of the most obvious FOX-aired “nose-out” phenomenon, they were forced to copy this blunder into all the other “amateur” footage which would surely have shown it even more clearly than the “Chopper 5” footage did.<br /><br />To accomplish this, they had to abandon the independent fuel tank explosion explanation for the separate fireballs and use what would have represented the starboard-side explosion as cover for the “nose-out.” Of course, this subsequently placed the port-side explosion out of position. This was only a minor anomaly compared to having to explain how an entire third of the still-intact plane emerged from the backside of WTC2 in that FOX-aired blooper.<br /><br />Unfortunately for them, they had already dug their own graves. Although this solution bought them some time (about 5 years so far), they had to know that the fact that there was no hole in “exit-face” from which the “nosecone” could have “emerged” was going to be their ultimate undoing. There was no way for them to run up there and create the unplanned hole they now needed to exist, but even if there was, it wasn’t like they could “unbroadcast” the already-aired footage of the fully-intact steel beams.<br /><br />At this point, they were forced to choose between hoping that nobody figured out this obvious “smoking gun” and providing no amateur footage from the north side at all. If not one person would have captured the “nose-out” on film, that would have rivaled the sheer lunacy of finding Satam Al Suqami’s unscathed passport in the street.<br /><br />This really wasn’t too hard of a decision for them, for a couple of reasons:<br /><br /><strong>1.)</strong> They had already aired “live” footage from the north that shows no sign of the “nose-out.” </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><strong>2.)</strong> The “nose-out” phenomenon was obvious enough that it could be seen even at full-speed. Even if that weren’t the case, it would have undoubtedly been recorded and eventually released on the internet, immediately exposing the amateur videos as containing CGI planes.<br /><br />And so in essence, the "fitting" logic behind that decision was the exact same logic that they used when they first decided they could get away with this crime in the first place:<br /><br />Proving that something exists is far easier than having to prove that it doesn’t exist. “Seeing is believing” - no matter that it defies the Laws of Physics. Such is the power of the mighty media.<br /><br />In this case, it was a far less daunting task to reinforce the physical impossibility that people had seen on television than to convince people that they didn’t see it at all.<br /><br />As convoluted as that way of thinking may seem, it had to be the ultimate logic behind adding the “nose-out” into the amateur footage.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis -</span> Execution</em></strong><br /><br />As far as the execution of that impromptu plan goes, it would have been relatively simple. The matter of adding believable shadows and trying to match the rest of the “nose-out” characteristics would have complicated matters somewhat, but keep in mind that they already had video editors furiously working to add the CGI into every frame of every video anyway. I’m sure all this new “wrinkle” did was delay the release of these amateur videos by a couple of hours or so. To help speed up the process, they could have easily reassigned one or more video editors to work on just the nose-out frames.<br /><br />So long as the editing time didn’t exceed by too great a factor the amount of time that a “somewhat in-shock” general public would expect to be “reasonable” for an anxious photographer to submit his/her footage of the event to a major network.<br /><br />As I look back at it now, anything longer than a couple of hours or so seems unreasonable to me, since both parties should have been anxious to find each other, for reasons that almost seem too obvious to mention: instant fame for the photographer and “first scoop” ratings for the networks.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Conclusion<br /></em></strong></span><br />The cover-up of the FOX blooper ends up being much easier to prove than the actual FOX blooper itself. The proof ended up being so simple and so compelling that I felt I needed to publish it immediately. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I am stunned, quite frankly, at the luke-warm reaction to Killtown's original revelation of this concept at 911blogger. One anonymous coward actually replied: "Hate to say it...but that photo looks like a fake to me." I've already linked to one NIST document containing a photo showing no missing steel beams; but just in case, <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf">here is another one</a> (see page 89). </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Perhaps when accompanied by this analysis, which shows the motive behind adding the "nose-out" into every possible video angle, this easy-to-interpret physical impossibility will help everyone to see that this is irrefutable proof of how TV-Fakery led to video editing.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">To clarify, what this ONE PICTURE proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is that EVERY SINGLE VIDEO showing the “nose-out” phenomenon contains a CGI plane.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">When combined with the analysis I've presented both here and in Part I of this article, it also proves (by association to the motive) that the "plane" depicted in the FOX-aired "Chopper 5" footage was also a "live" CGI insertion.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">By virtue of that proof, it can be promulgated that all other "live" footage from that day must also have contained "live" CGI insertions rather than real planes. This is because any real plane would have been captured by the camera affixed to Chopper 5.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><strong>Note: </strong>In Part I of this article, I attempted to use the term "osmosis" to explain the concept of a solid "passing through" another solid. Osmosis is actually a term used to define the passage of water through a membrane. Of course, there is no term in existence to describe the concept a solid passing through another solid - simply because it's a physical impossibility. And so in Part II, I have invented the term "Osnosis" to define this fictional event. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Afterword </span></em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">The original purpose of Part II was to further prove that what “exited” WTC2 was not any real object, by demonstrating that subsequent video releases showing the “nose-out” phenomenon do not correlate with the “live” footage. Furthermore, I planned on providing numerous examples of “live” footage which did not show the “nose-out” phenomenon at all.<br /><br />Because what I have written thus far essentially renders my originally-planned approach into an exercise in redundancy, I will include the remainder of what was to be Part II as Reference material, to be updated and formatted "on the fly" until completion. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">All that really remains is to go through every single video, documenting the specific proof behind the CGI insertion in each one.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Reference<br /></em></strong></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis - <span style="font-size:100%;">(from the department of redundancy department)</span></em></strong></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><br /></em></strong></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;">There is no other “live” footage that clearly shows the “nose-out” phenomenon. The closest we come to seeing this occurrence from a different angle is over at ABC. ABC’s nose-out is partially hidden behind their “bottom third” graphic.<br /><br />When replaying ABC’s footage, CNN has to add an extension to their “bottom third” graphic to cover up the same part of the image.<br /><br />When looking at the following clips (from which the screenshots were excerpted), you will notice the same “Chopper Drift” problem that occurred with the Friedlgate footage. Notice the towers drifting to the right within the frame boundaries just before the “impact,” and then back to the left after it.<br /><br /><table><tbody><tr><td><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMucVeew8eg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; WIDTH: 350px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: left" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ABCVideoLink.jpg" border="0" /></a></td><td><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouVnNibGEgc"><img style="DISPLAY: block; WIDTH: 350px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: right" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/CNNVideoLink.jpg" border="0" /></a></td></tr></tbody></table></p></span><p></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><br /></span><p></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">This would have served as a convenient reinforcement of the “nose-out” that FOX offered us, except for one rather large problem…<br /><br />Due to the CGI travel path, this camera angle would have shown the “nose-out” coming out of WTC2 somewhat sideways.<br /><br />With the exception of these two “live” feeds, all other footage that was broadcast on 9/11/01 show no sign of the “nose-out” phenomenon whatsoever.<br /></span><br /><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis -</span> “Live” Frames</em></strong><br /><br />Before I present these screenshots and videos I want to offer great thanks to Killtown, Webfairy, goatpussy, domscd, and others who have taken the time to make these videos available for all of us to analyze. Were it not for their efforts, we would be years behind where we find ourselves today.<br /><br />The format here is simple. I have provided my usual screenshot notes for each video sequence. To see the source of the screenshot, click anywhere on the graphic for the link. </span></p><br /><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Live Frames & Notes To Be Added</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></p></span><p><em><strong><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis -</span> Edited "Amateur" Video</span><br /></strong></em><br /></p><a><p></a></p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpw4FZcfiqM"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ShadowMath.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> <p><strong>Bonus Note:</strong> </span></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Let’s see what trigonometry has to say about this shadow.<br /><br />In the frame 82 screenshot (above left), WTC2 is 48 pixels wide (black line). The nose-out protrudes out of WTC2 by 7 pixels (red line). Since the actual width of WTC2 is known to be 208 ft, we can apply a quick ratio to determine that the distance of protrusion = 30.33 ft (7 X 208 / 48).<br /><br />I believe it is widely accepted fact that the sun was shining at a 13 degree angle to this face. Here’s a quickie graphic:</span><br /><br /><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ShadowSketch2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />I’ll be generous and say that the minimum distance from the “nose-out” to the far side of the exit face is 190ft (that’s 8ft for the “fuselage” radius plus and additional 10ft from that point the closer corner).<br /><br />For the shadow to stretch across the entire tower using these assumptions, the angle of the sun would have to be 9.2 degrees. Oops, there I go using the “expert” scientific approach (start with what we “saw,” then move the sun, moon and stars until it works out).<br /><br />Since the 13 degrees is a given, and the protrusion distance can be measured, we can solve for the correct shadow length (s):<br /><br />30.33 / s = tan 13°<br />s = 30.33 / tan13°<br />s = 131.37<br /><br />Therefore, the correct length of the shadow for a 30.33ft protrusion should be 131.37ft.<br /><br />If we wanted to determine how far the “nose-out” should have protruded before its shadow spanned the entire width of the face, all we would have to do is set s = 190 and calculate the appropriate protrusion (p) as follows:<br /><br />p / 190 = tan13°<br />p = 190 tan13°<br />p = 43.86<br /><br />Therefore, in order for the shadow of the “nose-out” to span 190ft, it would have to protrude 43.86ft from the “exit face.”<br /><br />In pixels, this works out to 10.12 (48 x 43.86 / 208). Let’s just call it an even 10 pixels. That’s 3 pixels (13.53ft – green line) more than it is shown as protruding in frame 82. The "nose-out" doesn't protrude that far until frame 84 (two frames later).<br /><br />Of course, since it’s already been proven that this was an inserted CGI, proving that its shadow was incorrectly edited into the footage is somewhat redundant.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></p></span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR183M_VJas"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/EvanFairbanks.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />More Analysis forthcoming.<span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><br /><br /><div></div><p></p><div></div><p></p><div></div><p></p><div></div><p></p><div></div><p></p><div></div><p></p><p></p><div></div><p></p><p></p><div></div><p></p><p></p><br /><p></p><p></p><div></div><p></p><div></div><p></p><div></div><p></p><div></div><p></p><div></div><p></p><div></div><p></p><p></p><div></div><p></p><p></p><div></div><p></p><p></p><br /><p></p><p></p>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com123tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1163434548898898252006-11-13T10:47:00.000-05:002006-11-23T02:04:46.376-05:009/11 TV-Fakery Whistleblower: Pinocchio Exposes Nose-Out Fairy Tale – Part I: The Screw-Up<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Foreword</em></strong></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">This article represents an in-depth analysis of what I refer to as the "nose-out" phenomenon. For the unfamiliar, there was one "live" video feed broadcast by FOX on 9/11/01 that shows (if you believe the "official" story we've been told) the fully-intact nosecone of flight UA175 exiting the northeast face of WTC2 after impact. </span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Although this phenomenon is hardly "new" to most 9/11 researchers, I have yet to see anything written about it that goes much further than to simply state that it is "impossible." While I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment, stopping there opens up the logical question of what it was, if it was not the nose of a plane.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I have read of only three alternative answers to this question: a missile, a hologram, and a computer generated image (CGI). Although these alternatives apparently seem too far-fetched for the majority of 9/11 researchers to accept, I can assure you that all three are more viable answers than the "official" belief (although not equally more viable).<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;">It should be quite obvious to any individual that what "exits" the northeast face of WTC2 cannot be the nosecone of any plane. Ignoring pychological aspects, t</span><span style="font-family:times new roman;">he only logical reason I can come up with as to why any person would honestly believe that aluminum can <a href="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/WhatHole.jpg">pass through steel by osmosis</a> (did a fully-intact nosecone somehow fit through a window?) is the lack of any comprehensible alternative explanation. </span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">The main purpose of this article is to provide that explanation. For the record, you will not find the words "missile" or "hologram" anywhere in this article following the period at the end of this sentence (a missile, or any solid on this planet.for that matter, is ruled out by the fact that there was no "exit hole").<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Due to the vast amount of material that the "nose-out" phenomenon ultimately provides upon close scrutiny, I have chosen to break the scope of this article into two parts. Here in Part I, I will strictly be dealing with both how and why the “nose-out” phenomenon occurred.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Part II will focus on the subsequent attempt to cover-up this blunder of epic proportions, and the many errors that were made in that hasty process. My ultimate goal is to bolster the logical explanation I am providing here in Part I with additional visual and physical evidence I will follow up with in Part II.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">When all is said and done, it should be perfectly clear that the “nose-out” phenomenon was nothing but another FOX-aired TV-Fakery blooper. </span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em></em></strong></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction</span><br /></em></strong><br />Although this article does not contain very complicated math, it does involve some complicated visuals. I will be examining the effect of “Chopper Drift” as it pertains to the “nose-out” phenomenon observed in three different sources of the same “live” camera footage. These three sources are known as </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6V-ssCV1jA"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Saltergate</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1umznssiZU"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Loose Change Saltergate</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, and the same video upon which I have based my last two articles - what I will henceforth refer to as </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YOu2Qy0A0s"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Friedlgate</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">.<br /><br />Rather than having you watch the entire Friedlgate video yet again, I have created an abbreviated and “enhanced” version for the purposes of this article. In this video, I have excerpted frames 13750 through 14305 from the Friedlgate video. This captures the footage from the first clear frame from the “Chopper 5” video feed until the blackout frames after the “impact” and subsequent “nose-out” phenomenon. For further clarity, I have centered the frame on the “nose-out” location, and cropped the new video accordingly, being careful to maintain the same aspect. Furthermore, I have zoomed in an additional 7X between “impact” and “nose-out.”<br /><br />This video has only been created to simplify my introduction. All frames referenced and/or presented in this article come directly from the original FriedlGate source. Just in case you still manage to miss the “nose-out” at the end of the video, I have circled it below the video in a screenshot of the frame after which this article has been named: Pinocchio.</span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jasojNAvrIU"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/IntroVideoCartoon.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Nose-Out.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></p></span><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Reference Frames<br /></em></strong></span><br />The first frame containing any part of the CGI is frame 14264, which I have named CGI Cue.<br /><br />The last frame containing any part of the CGI is frame 14305, the last frame before the feed is momentarily cut off. Due to frame distortion caused by a noise bar in frames 14304 & 14305, I will refer to frame 14303 as CGI Cut for the purposes of this analysis.<br /><br />Although I have carefully examined every frame between 14264 and 14305; CGI Cue, Pinocchio, “Exit” Fireball, and Cut Frame were the only ones I deemed critical enough to bother naming, for reasons which will become evident in the <em>Analysis</em> section much later in this article.</span></p><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/PinocchioRefFrames2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Method<br /></em></strong></span><br />I will quantify “Chopper Drift” based on a frame-by-frame analysis, using a benchmark frame location as a reference point relative to objects moving within the frames. Due to the precise requirements of this analysis, I will toss aside my Vernier calipers and resort to pixel counting. What I refer to as “Chopper Drift” could in actuality be comprised of many factors in combination with actual linear chopper drift, such as chopper rotation, camera movement, and camera stabilization software adjustments.<br /><br />For this reason, I have capitalized and placed the term “Chopper Drift” in quotes to represent the following definition:<br /><br />“Chopper Drift”: The cumulative effect of all factors which caused the frame boundaries within the Friedlgate source footage to shift relative to the fixed objects that were being filmed.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Prerequisites<br /></em></strong></span><br />There is some prerequisite methodology and research that I need to summarize before I present my analysis.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Prerequisites –</em></strong></span> <strong><em>Frame Alignment Methodology</em></strong><br /><br />I will start by presenting the frame alignment technique used, by including one example graphic to explain the method I will be using later on in this article to quantify “Chopper Drift.”<br /><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/SampleAlignment.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />If you’ve read my previous article, you should already be familiar with these two frames. In the graphic above, I have aligned Eclipse with Zoom3 both vertically (using horizontal black lines) and horizontally (using vertical red lines). I used two reference lines for each axis to ensure there were no changes in either zoom factor or aspect. If there were any change in zoom factor or aspect, I would not have been able to get all four lines to line up.<br /><br />We can determine the effect of “Chopper Drift” relative to these two frames by counting the number of pixels by which the frame has shifted relative to the fixed tower positions. Since all logos are fixed relative to the frame boundaries, I can use any point on one of these logos as my benchmark pixel.<br /><br />I chose to use one pixel to the right of the endpoint of the “LIVE” caption underline as my benchmark pixel to determine offset. I could have used either the “HIGH 5” or “Good Day” fixed logos, or even the black frame borders to come to up with the same result. I chose the “LIVE” caption underline because it is a highly contrasted, one-pixel-high straight line which is “out of the way” of what I am trying to draw attention to in the frames.<br /><br />Using this method, I was able to determine that relative to Zoom3, the frame contents Eclipse have shifted right by four pixels and down by one pixel. The more correct way of saying this is that the frame boundaries of Eclipse have shifted left and up relative to Zoom3.<br /><br /><strong>Bonus Line:<br /></strong><br />As an added bonus, we can also note that this CGI descended approximately one fuselage diameter (about 16 ft) in 0.4 seconds (12 frames). Even more amazing is that once the “tail” emerges from behind the Good Day logo, <a href="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/LevelTailStrip.jpg">it remains completely level until it disappears “into” WTC2 </a>. Of course, it is impossible for ANY real plane (including a fighter jet) to instantaneously “level itself” from a descent rate of 40 ft/s. However, since the scope of this article is limited to the “nose-out” phenomenon, I am only including this physical impossibility as a “Bonus” note.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Prerequisites -</em></strong></span> <strong><em>Research<br /></em></strong><br />Here is where things start to get a little more technical. I am not a video expert by any means, so I had to do a little extra research in order to understand the basics of live CGI insertion technology. Specifically, I needed to understand the parameters by which a CGI would either be seen or obscured.<br /><br />The easiest example of this technology to research is SporTVision’s "<span style="font-family:times new roman;">1st & Ten"</span><sup><span style="font-size:85%;">TM</span></sup> graphics system. The next section is a summary of what I learned in about ten minutes as a result of my research. If you find my summary to be insufficient, I have included links to the sites I visited in the <em>Reference</em> section under “SporTVison Research Links.”<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Prerequisites -</em></strong></span> <strong><em>Live CGI Insertion Technology Research Summary<br /></em></strong><br />Basically, multiple cameras in multiple locations constantly (every 1/30s) feed camera data (such as position, aspect, and zoom) to computers that compare their input to a known model of the image they are filming. In the case of the virtual yellow line which represents the first down line in football, the model is the football field. This is (relatively) easy to do on an empty field.<br /><br />The difficulty arises when there are people and objects on top of the field – such as players, referees, footballs, etc. In order to prevent the yellow line from appearing on these people/objects, they use colors to distinguish between the players/objects and the field.</span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 480px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/first-down-line.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />In order for this technology to work properly, the color of the playing field needs to be “unique.” Problems arise when uniforms are too close to the color of the field. In cases such as these, the virtual line will become visibly superimposed on a player’s body or uniform, rather than that player obstructing the line from view.<br /><br />After searching the internet for several hours over the past couple of days looking for an example of this case, I came up empty. Luckily, it was a rainy day in Foxboro yesterday as the Patriots lost to the Jets. If I had actually recorded the game instead of just the highlights, I’m sure I could have provided an example with a yellow first down line, instead of the blue line of scrimmage. Rest assured; it’s the same technology, just a different colored line.<br /><br />The pants and sleeves of the Jets’ uniforms are already somewhat of a dull green. Combine this with a little mud and a little haze and rain, and this is what you get:</span> </p><p></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p><br /></p><p><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/1stTenBlooper.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />I’ve also included a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VWDNG1UiqQ">short video clip</a> of the ESPN footage from SportsCenter.<br /><br /><br /></p><p><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Prerequisites -</em></strong></span> <strong><em>Live CGI Insertion Applied to TV-Fakery<br /></em></strong><br />Early in the morning on September 11, 2001, there wasn’t a cloud in the sky anywhere near Manhattan. Not one “live” shot or replay on that day showed the CGI cross in front of any smoke, either. Because of this graphics system’s requirement of a constant background color, this was an essential aspect of footage shown from any angle on that day.<br /><br />Of course, as I will get to in Part II of this article, all the later videos could be altered to any editor’s content, since they weren’t subject to this necessary parameter.<br /><br />Since we know that the CGI would only appear when applied to a sky-colored background, this means that both WTC2 and the fireball that emerged from the “exit” face would have concealed it. Of course, for the fireball to conceal it, it would have had to appear <strong>before</strong> the CGI “exited” WTC2.<br /><br />Furthermore, we now know that the motion of the CGI is tied to the frame boundaries (the football field), not the towers (the football players). This is easily validated by calculating the speed of the plane in pixels/frame using two different reference points.<br /><br />Before I did my research, I was baffled by the varying speed of the CGI relative to the towers. In one frame, it moved 4 pixels closer to WTC2 – in the next, it moved 8 pixels closer… then 6? Essentially, this is (6) pixels/frame (+/-2).<br /><br />After I did my research, when I ignored the towers and used the right hand frame boundary as a reference, the CGI moved twice as consistently at (5) pixels/frame (+/-1).<br /><br />This also explains why the velocity I calculated for the CGI in my last article was so high. Because of this “Chopper Drift,” the CGI ended up approaching WTC faster than it was supposed to.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong>Prerequisites -</strong></em></span> <strong><em>Live CGI Insertion Applied to the FriedlGate Source Footage</em></strong><br /><br />Based on my newfound knowledge of how live CGI technology works, I can immediately think of two main reasons why the CGI did not present itself until after Zoom3 had stabilized in the FriedlGate video:<br /><br /><strong>1.)</strong> The CGI could not pass in front of the dark smoke billowing from WTC1, because it would only be visible over sky-colored pixels.<br /><br /><strong>2.)</strong> The CGI was a constant size and shape, and therefore could not be subjected to any zoom or aspect change (imagine if you had seen the towers get bigger or smaller while the CGI remained the same size). Because of this, it stands to reason that all camera locations and zoom factors had to be carefully calculated so that each of their CGIs would scale closely with a 767. This process probably required several (non-explosive) practice drills. Of course, they still didn’t get the zooms quite right, which is why many researchers have pointed out that the CGI images do not scale correctly to B767-200s.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis<br /></em></strong></span><br />Now that we know enough about this live CGI insertion technology, we can finally get down to the business of evaluating the “nose-out” phenomenon. I apologize for the delay, but I felt that the prerequisite material was necessary in order to understand “the rules” of how inserted CGIs interact with real objects when they “cross paths.”<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis –</em></strong></span> <strong><em>“Chopper Drift”</em></strong><br /><br />With that taken care of, it is now time to quantify the cumulative effect of “Chopper Drift” on the inserted CGI in this video.<br /><br />To present this, I will use the same method as I did in the sample alignment. Only this time, I will apply it to CGI Cue and CGI Cut.</p><p><br /><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/CuevsCut2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />In the 1.3 seconds that elapses between CGI Cue and CGI Cut (14264 to 14303), the frame boundaries shift up by (5) pixels and left by (13) pixels (relative to the fixed towers).<br /><br />Since we know that CGI position is tied to the frame boundaries rather than the towers, we can conclude that were it not for “Chopper Drift,” the “nose” would have ended up 13 pixels to the right of where it actually is in the Cut Frame.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis –</em></strong></span> <strong><em>“Nose-Out” Characteristics</em></strong><br /><br />Now we need to take a closer look at how much of the CGI’s “nose” is visible throughout the entire “nose-out” frame sequence, noting the alignment offset due to “Chopper Drift” of each frame relative to CGI Cue. </span></p><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p></span></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><a><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 700px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/NoseStripZoom.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Please note that in the previous graphic, each cropped image is exactly the same size and scale. Each cropping was performed using the exact same pixel coordinates. I did not realign the frame boundaries relative to the towers before cropping because I wanted to highlight how slowly the CGI advances in these frames. It has slowed from (5) pixels/frame before “impact” to just (2) pixels/frame after “exit.”<br /><br />As noted at the bottom of the graphic, there seems to be some sort of a video filter applied to the frame which was probably intended to work as yet another “safety net.” I can only assume that it must have also been tied to the frame boundaries and therefore also out of position due to “Chopper Drift,” since it only obscured part of the CGI’s “nose” for two frames (14301/2). When darkened in frame 14305, it actually served to highlight the nose.</span> <p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">We can also see that the greatest number of visible CGI pixels before the fireball and after “exit” is (9) pixels in Pinocchio (frame 14300). The reason I have named the article after this frame is because it allows us to calculate the maximum amount of “Chopper Drift” that could have occurred before resulting in the “nose-out” phenomenon.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis -</em></strong></span> <strong><em>Calculations<br /></em></strong><br />Since there are (9) observable pixels of the “nose-out” in Pinocchio at a point in time when the frame boundaries have shifted by (12) pixels relative to CGI Cue, quick subtraction (12-9) tells us that a (3) pixel shift was all that could have been tolerated.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Conclusion<br /></em></strong></span><br />The problem with using live CGI insertion from the camera angle in the Friedlgate video is that there is a gap filled with open sky between the two towers. Because no other “live” camera angle showed open sky immediately next to the “exit” face of WTC2, this particular CGI had the greatest risk associated with it.<br /><br />It seems to me that the “exit-side” fireball was specifically designed to hide the CGI, with an apparent “safety net” being some sort of a filter which was supposed to mask the sky between the two towers. The ultimate fallback plan was to kill the tape-delayed feed immediately if something went wrong. I can only speculate that they waited a split second too long, hence the blackout frames following frame 14305.<br /><br />I firmly believe that the “nose-out” phenomenon was a product of excessive “Chopper Drift.” More specifically, allowable “Chopper Drift” was exceeded by (9) pixels, which works out to 300% error.<br /><br />As bad as this seems, it pales in comparison to what would have occurred had the frame boundaries been shifting in the opposite direction. Imagine the immediate fallout had the CGI vanished just before “impact” - or worse yet, a quarter of the way “inside” WTC2. Still, it’s ironic how all their “safety nets” seemed to fail in one fell swoop, all because of the very thing they were trying to protect against. Could it be that that didn’t take the time to fully understand how the technology they were using worked?<br /><br />From the ironic to the comedic, consider the fact that every single subsequent video that shows this nose-out phenomenon was created as a cover-up for this one “live” FOX chopper footage blooper.<br /><br />As I will cover in Part II of this article, as is usually the case with most tangled webs, the cover-up only makes the initial mistake more obvious.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Reference<br /></em></strong></span><br /><strong>SporTVision Research Links<br /></strong><br /><a href="http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov2000/975264061.Eg.r.html">http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov2000/975264061.Eg.r.html</a><br /><a href="http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/first-down-line.htm">howstuffworks.com</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_&_Ten_(graphics_system)">wikipedia.org - 1st & Ten</a><br /><a href="http://www.sportvision.com/">Changing The Game (sportvision.com)</a><br /><br /></span></p><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com166tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1161874950297272482006-10-26T09:09:00.000-05:002006-10-30T10:05:45.943-05:009/11 TV-Fakery... Hunt the Boeing (WTC) 2: Pythagoras Exposes Phantom Flight UA175 as a Hoax<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Introduction</em></strong></span><br /><br />It appears that the newer source of the "Jim Friedl" audio has more to offer than meets the ear. In this </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YOu2Qy0A0s"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">newly released video</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, 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."<br /><br />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 "</span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8EomY8jcjw"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">original source</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">," the video feed never switches to this helicopter (this would have occurred approximately 2:44 into that video).<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Objective </em></strong></span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />In order to achieve this objective, it is necessary to determine two major elements for visibility:</span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br />1.) The observable size of the “plane” at any given zoom factor<br />2.) The relative location of the “plane” inside or outside the boundaries of any given frame<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis </em></strong></span><br /><br />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. </span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />*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.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis:</em></strong></span> <strong><em>Reference Frames</em></strong><br /><br />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.”</span><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span><br /><img alt="url not found" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ShrunkRefFrames.jpg" /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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).</span><br /><p></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Clarification Note:</strong> Reference screenshots have been scaled to 70% of their original extracted size to fit the width of this page. </span></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="color:#000000;">From this point forward, all screenshots have been doubled from their original size. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="color:#000000;">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</span>, you should find that the <strong>ratio</strong> of your own measurements to mine will remain consistent.</span></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis:</em></strong></span> <strong><em>Zoom3 Measurements</em></strong></span><br /><br /><br /><img alt="url not found" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Zoom3Measure.jpg" /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis:</em></strong></span> <strong><em>Zoom3 Calculations</em></strong></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.<br /></span><img alt="url not found" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/AuxViewCalc.jpg" /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span></em></strong><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.</span> <span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis:</em></strong></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> <strong><em>Zoom1 Measurements & Calculations</em></strong> </span></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span><br /><img alt="url not found" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Zoom1Measure.jpg" /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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. </span><br /><br /><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis:</em></strong></span> <strong><em>“Plane” Speed</em></strong> </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">From the graphic in the <strong><em>Zoom3 Measurement</em></strong> 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). </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">826ft/s X 3600 s/hr / 5280 ft/mile = <strong>563.2mph!</strong> </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Analysis:</em></strong></span> <em><strong>“Plane” Size</strong></em> </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Conclusion </em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><br /><img alt="url not found" src="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/InserttheBoeing.jpg" /><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">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.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Running through the process of how I determined where to draw the line representing 563.2mph:<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">563.2mph / 3600 s/hr = 0.1564 miles per second<br />0.1564 mile/s X 6.1s = 0.9543 miles<br />0.9543 miles X 25.57 tower widths/mile = 24.4 tower widths<br /></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Since I measured 1 tower width to be 0.09in,<br />24.4 tower widths X 0.090 in/tower width = 2.196in<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">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.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">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 <strong>minimum</strong> velocity would be 632mph.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">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.<br /></p></span><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Notes</em></strong></span> </span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">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). </span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">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.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">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 <strong><em>"Plane" Size</em></strong> 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.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Reference</em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/VelocityChart.jpg">Velocity Reference Line Calculations</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"><strong><em>Revision History</em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><strong>10/28/06 - 12:45am - </strong>Reference screenshots scaled to 70% to fit this page. Original size screenshots available <a href="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/ReferenceFrames.jpg">here</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong>10/28/06 - 11:19pm - Clarification Note </strong>added to <strong><em>Reference Frame</em></strong> section.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong>10/29/06 - 8:45pm - </strong>Added LH extension line in <strong><em>Zoom1 Measurements</em></strong> 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.</span> </p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong>10/30/06 - 8:01am - </strong></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Corrected WTC1 dimension in <strong><em>Zoom3 Measurements</em></strong> graphic to read 0.075in, as measured (previously erroneously labeled as 0.070in).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><strong>10/30/06 - 8:19am</strong> - </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><strong><em>Revision History</em></strong> section added, and revision notes relocated here from main text, so as not to break up the flow of the article.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong>10/30/06 - 9:54am</strong> - "Enhanced" <strong>Clarification Note</strong> in <strong><em>Reference Frame</em></strong> section.</span></p>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com187tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36365995.post-1161448536272916332006-10-21T11:31:00.000-05:002006-11-13T16:05:21.320-05:009/11 WNYW FOX5 Blooper - "Jim Friedl": Eyewitness or Member of the TV Fakery WESCAM Crew?<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Foreword</span><br /></em></strong><br />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.<br /><br />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: </span><a href="http://www.stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Stanley Praimnath</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">).<br /><br />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 </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8EomY8jcjw"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">here</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">. I found it at </span><a href="http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Killtown’s “2nd Hit" webpage</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> (video group 2, far right).<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Analysis</span></em></strong><br /><br />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 <em>somewhere</em> in Hoboken, NJ.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!”<br /><br />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?”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Notice how quickly the chopper radio call is faded out. The fact that it was faded out at all <strong><em>proves that this voice came from an incoming feed to the studio</em></strong>, meaning that it cannot be claimed that this voice came from inside the studio.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />This new source of audio, with a completely different video feed, was posted to YouTube on October 3, 2006. In </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YOu2Qy0A0s"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">this new video</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">, I counted a remarkable <strong><em>nine</em></strong> “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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Not only did they produce images of fake planes that were never there; they would also have produced fake eyewitnesses!<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Form Your Own Opinion</span></em></strong><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Questions About “Jim Friedl”</span></em></strong><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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 <strong><em>backside</em></strong> 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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I’m no linguistic profiler or anything, but that won't stop me from coming to these two basic conclusions based on the audio:<br /><br />1.) His accent does not sound like that of a native NY/NJ resident.<br />2.) His diction indicates to me that he is well educated.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusion</span></em></strong><br /><br />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.”<br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Afterword</span></em></strong><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The only rebuttal being offered against no big Boeings is eyewitness testimony. This is because there is <strong><em>no possible scientific rebuttal</em></strong>. Scientific rebuttal is impossible because unlike the laws of societies, the Laws of Physics can be neither abolished nor changed.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Is there really a fire escape platform outside the 14th floor at the corner of Hudson & Franklin that “</span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YOu2Qy0A0s"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Rosa Cordona Rivera</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">” could have been standing on, smoking a cigarette? If so, what was her view like?<br /><br />Print out a screenshots from any of these </span><a href="http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">2nd hit videos</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> and attempt to determine where these cameramen were standing. Were they inside a building? Were they on a rooftop? Were they inside </span><a href="http://www.newyorkpartyshuttle.com/new-york-attractions/st-pauls-chapel-new-york.php"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">St. Paul’s Chapel</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">? 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 </span><a href="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/?action=view&current=wtc2-strike-0.flv&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch2"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">this person</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> 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?<br /><br />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 </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDNcjxFoAkk"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">these guys</span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> 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 <strong><em>after</em></strong> it hits WTC2?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I highly recommend the following sites to start you on your own personal path to 9/11 truth:<br /><br /></span><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/intro.html"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Introduction to 911 research</span></a><br /><a href="http://killtown.911review.org/"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Killtown's: Questioning the 9/11 attacks...</span></a><br /><a href="http://thewebfairy.com/"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">The Webfairy</span></a><br /><a href="http://www.911tvfakery.net/"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">911TVFakery</span></a><br /><a href="http://nomoregames.net/"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">No More Games • Net</span></a><br /><a href="http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">JaneDoe0911</span></a><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Reference</span></em></strong><br /><br /><strong>Audio:</strong><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><a href="http://www.veronicachapman.com/audio/Chopper5.mp3"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Chopper5.mp3<br /></span></a><a href="http://www.veronicachapman.com/audio/OhMyGodChopper5.mp3"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">OhMyGodChopper5.mp3<br /></span></a><a href="http://www.veronicachapman.com/audio/JimFreedl.mp3"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">JimFriedl.mp3</span></a><br /><p><span style="font-family:times new roman;">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. </span></p><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><p></p><p><strong>Visual:</strong></span></p><a href="http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/FoxBlooperTimeline.jpg"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Fox Blooper Timeline</span></a>StillDigginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08647559351102241180noreply@blogger.com166