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.