Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Marcus Icke Writes a Review


As pleased as I am to know that Marcus Icke has read at least two of my articles, I must say that I am disappointed in the strength of his argument against them.

Feel free to read his comments in
this apparent rebuttal to my comment that if he can place airplanes in space, he should be able to look straight down on them using the very same software.

In his article, he claims that I have miscalculated an angle by 10 degrees. His claim is based on using Flight Simulator 2004 software to recreate a CBS frame. Using the placement of the Empire State Building relative to the twin towers, he claims that the actual angle of the camera relative to the face of WTC2 is 2 degrees, as opposed to the 11.59 degrees that I had calculated.

Although I agree that the “blooming” he refers to is a potential source of error in my calculation, at an average of 1.6 or so degrees per miscounted pixel, there is no way that “blooming” can account for a 6 pixel miscount.

There are multiple problems with Marcus’ method of arriving at his angle calculation, but before I go there, I’d like to openly ruminate regarding the intent behind his rebuttal.

Icke’s Motive:

Although cleverly worded and very accurately mimicking my presentation format, even down to the font selection – there seems to be malicious intent behind the article. If the inciting phraseology behind this intent was “Something has always bothered me about the work of Marcus Icke and Stephan Grossman,” then this type of rebuttal seems a tad overzealous to be a “tit-for-tat” exchange.

What makes this interesting is that Marcus Icke has authored an entire sequence of articles which are linked to under the title “
The WTC2 Media Hoax.” To the best of my recollection, it was simply “Ghostgun UA175” a few months ago.

So I will dare to ask this simple question: How can you call something a media hoax without blaming the media?

Here, Marcus Icke states “If a Boeing 767-200 had hit the tower it would have exploded externally and bent the facade inward noticeably while depositing pieces of fuselage, wings, tail fins...etc in the streets below. There would have been some column damage but it would have been virtually impossible for any of the lighter airframe sections to pass completely through the tower.”

Except for the “bend the fa├žade inward noticeably” part, this is true (only the engines and landing gear would have bent anything).

So if we agree, why is Icke on the offensive? Perhaps the answer may be scattered throughout his articles…

Icke Defends the MSM:

At first glance, you might jump to the conclusion that Marcus Icke is referring to the same Media Hoax/TV-Fakery that I’ve been going on and on about. However, if you follow all the links on his “WTC2 Media Hoax” page, he only attacks the amateur footage.

Then, in his rebuttal to my “The Earth is Not Flat” article, he actually DEFENDS the CBS footage – using amateur footage in an attempt to validate his claim (how funny is that?).

The only way that the media can be absolved, given the impossibility of a plane cutting through the south tower, is if they can use holograms as an excuse. To the best of my knowledge, Icke and Grossman are the only two people on this planet who are still spewing hologram stories.

The different flight paths are what rule out holograms, which is exactly why Icke “can’t” look down on all of his planes, because they’re all in different places.

The REAL Media Hoax:

I have no problem with being proven wrong. I’ve been meaning to add a note to my Pinocchio article regarding the “Live CGI Insertion” section. Although it is possible that they could have used Sportvision technology,
the Moving Bridge, the Spinning WTC, and other footage clearly shows that bluescreen technology was used to bring 9/11 to our television sets.

So how valid is ANY calculation that relates the location of the Empire State Building to WTC2, after seeing this?

And how accurate do you suppose Icke’s “2 degree” calculation is after you look at a CBS pan-out?

Why is Icke’s WTC7 so far left of the CBS version? Why is every other building out of place? It must be all that “blooming,” right?


Marcus Icke should be commended. Were it not for his work, we may not have had enough information with which to rule out holograms.

Of course he has to defend the MSM footage. Of course he has to attack anyone who presents evidence of TV-Fakery. Even when he (very recently) “questions” the ABC “Live” footage, his language is “Fetzeresque:”

“Unless this stepping effect can be explained as a byproduct of the video recording process or an aerodynamic consequence of high speed flight then the Live Video can not be showing us a real aircraft. It is conceivable that the aircraft has been dubbed live into the video to conceal what was actually there and that this stepping effect could be the hallmark of the video technology that was utilised for this effect.”

Of course, Icke doesn’t date any of his work – which may explain why the second sentence sounds like it was written as a direct result of reading the “Live CGI Insertion” section of my Pinocchio article.

I have to give Marcus Icke credit for trying to be funny. Unfortunately for him, his weak defense of his own stance ends up being funnier than his mockery attempt.


Forgive me if I’ve made assumptions as to what Marcus’ stance actually is, but I’ve yet to see a single conclusion in any of his articles.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Evan Fairbanks 9/11 Video Fakery: The Monitor Theory


According to
this New York Times article, 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.”

I have no idea who Evan Fairbanks is or what he was doing on September 11th. What I do know is that the “footage” that is said to have come from his camera 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).

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.


Even before I considered that no planes hit the towers, I questioned the validity of this screenshot:

First of all, notice that there are TWO planes in this screenshot (the second plane is just above the “FBI agent’s” forearm).

At first, I considered two possible explanations for this second plane:

1.) That the second plane was added to the footage AFTER it was shown on ABC to confuse us
2.) That the second plane was a somehow a reflection

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.

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.

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.

Analysis: A New Perspective

In the second photo below, I have enlarged the “reflection” and lined it up with the “impact” above it.

I believe that what I used to think was a van, is in actuality some form of a monitor (on a slight angle).

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.

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.


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.

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?

How far off does a camera setting have to be to make black smoke appear to be white?

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.

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.


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.

Now I realize I can't help everyone to understand Newton's Third Law - but I can try, using an example.

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."

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."

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.

In essence, the plane would be hitting itself with the same force it would be applying to the steel beams.

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.

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.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

The Earth Is Not Flat


I started this blog for one reason: to make what I discovered during my research available to the general public.

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.

No planes crashed anywhere on September 11th. It’s a fact.

Exhibit A

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:

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.

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.

Exhibit B

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.”

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:

If you can’t see what I see, let me help. Look at only the top frame set:

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.

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.

Did five planes crash on 9/11? Of course not. No planes crashed on 9/11.

Exhibit C

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?

Rock breaks scissors, scissors cut paper, paper covers rock – and aluminum TRANSCENDS steel?

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.

You’ve Been Programmed

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:

No planes crashed on 9/11.

If you still doubt that fact after seeing the first three exhibits, ask yourself why.

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.

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."

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.

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?

You may ask: “What about all the eyewitnesses? Are you calling them ALL liars?”

As a matter of fact, I am.

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.”

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.”

The Big Picture

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Go ahead, call me insensitive. By nature, logic is insensitive. By all means, get good and angry – and then consider this:

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.

And who benefits? It’s actually harder to come up with a list of who doesn’t benefit.

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.

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?

Global terrorism benefits everyone – except taxpayers.


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.

I can’t watch the Nightly News on any channel without becoming disgusted by how stupid they expect me to be.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No planes crashed on 9/11.

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.

Who is they? Start with the media/eyewitnesses, and work your way back. It’s that simple.

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.

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.


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."

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.

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.

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.

None of that means anything... until you can prove that it all began with a Hollywood explosion.

Now get out there and spread the word. If anyone needs anything more from me, ask me in the comment section.

For Your Review


"Jim Friedl"

Rose Arce

Theresa Renaud

Richard Davis

Don Dahler

Kai Simonsen

Libby Clark

"NYPD Craig"

Just Plane Fact


Pinocchio I

Pinocchio II

Pinocchio III

Flight Path Fallacy

Media Madness

CNN Pipeline

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

9/11 TV-Fakery: 45 Degree UA175 Flight Path Discrepancy?


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.

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.

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.

The 2 videos I will be comparing in this article are the
CBS live broadcast (Part 2) and wtc2-strike7. 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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Let’s see what happens when we project a line at 23.5 degrees to the south corner of WTC2:

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.

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:

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.


I am beginning to lose count of how many methods I’ve used to prove that this “plane” was a CGI.

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.

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.

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.

Also remember that in order to refute my conclusion, you must prove that my margin of error is in the neighborhood of 45 degrees.

Good luck!


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.

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:

In frame 108, the nose of the plane is 185 pixels from the south corner of WTC2.

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.

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."

Calculating the angle based on the "final destination" on the north face of WTC2, I arrived at a discrepancy of 10 degrees:

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

diagram above.

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.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

9/11 Fairy Tales - Installment I: "NYPD Craig"


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 911blogger, which was basically a cut and paste job of a MySpace page.

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.


This isn’t a difficult lie to expose. In fact, all I have to do is post
a link to the story and even the average 9/11 researcher will catch the blatant lie.

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.

“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.

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.”

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.”


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.

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.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

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

Introduction – The “Venus Plane Trap”

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

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

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

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

Analysis – The "Venus Plane Trap"

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

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

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

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

Analysis – Spatial Ambiguity

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis – Simplifying to 3 Frames

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As it Happened CBS Part 2

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

WPIX Part 1

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


Pretty much the same as WPIX, only lower resolution.

CNN Exclusive

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

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

Evan Fairbanks

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

Analysis - Summary of Comparisons

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

Analysis – Identifying the Second Generation Videos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, December 17, 2006

"Libby" Clark: 9/11 Eyewitness Report Cards, Installment VI


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.

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.

Introduction – “Libby” Clark

“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
this video.

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).

Approach – Establish All Known Information (regardless of importance or validity)

“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…

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.

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.

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:

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 32 stories high.

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.

Persistence – Follow the Trail

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:

In this case, there happens to be plenty of information available, since
this building has its own website.

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:

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:

Resourcefulness – Use Every Available Tool

I decided I knew enough to perform a reverse address search. From that search (which yielded
over100 results), 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.

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:

James Clark: [undisclosed] Mercer Street, New York, NY 10003.

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:

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):

Profiling – Know Your Mark (or in this case, your Clark)

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.

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.

Another result that caught my attention was a

NY Times wedding announcement. 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.”

If you take a look at
who Evan's sister married 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 - daddy’s law firm continued its rise to prominence.

Conclusion Contest

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.

I’ve set up a temporary hotmail address where I’ll be accepting YOUR analyses and conclusions with regard to “Libby” Clark. Please submit your research to

My half story is missing some critical information/validation, including:

Is “Libby” really Evan Marie Clark (nee Freehill), who seemingly changed her name to Evan F. Clark in 2001?

Where exactly was she?

What doesn’t make sense about her “eyewitness account?”

Did she lie about feeling/seeing a plane on behalf of her husband, her father, or do you think she acted alone?

Why would anyone name their child Siobahn?

(That last tidbit, complete with Evan’s e-mail address, comes from

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.

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.

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.