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.