New studies of media coverage of the attacks on the Twin Towers have raised serious questions about the integrity of television broadcasts over CNN, CBS and FOX NEWS, according to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a non-partisan society of students, experts, and scholars. “I used to think that the very idea of faking ‘live’ broadcasts was at least faintly absurd,” observed James Fetzer, the society’s founder. “But it turns out that there is a delay between an event’s actual occurrence and the broadcasting of footage of that same event, which creates the opportunity for image manipulation.”
New proof has appeared in “September Clues,” a series of studies of these broadcasts currently available on YouTube and on google video. “These six studies, each of which is less than ten minutes in length, make it very difficult to deny that something was amuck on 9/11,” Fetzer added, “and they have now been corroborated by an in-depth analysis of the digital properties of a ‘live’ WNYW (Fox 5) helicopter video of United Airlines Fight 175 hitting the South Tower, which Ace Baker has provided. It, too, can now be found on-line as ‘Chopper 5 Composite’ at http://www.acebaker.com. We have also linked to them from our web site, 911scholars.org.”
Fetzer said he was affected in his thinking when relatives traveled to Madison from Milwaukee to visit with his daughter and son-in-law. “They wanted to watch a Brewer’s game, so we put it on TV,” he explained. “They had a favorite announcer who was on radio. So we put the radio by the television. To our astonishment, the radio broadcast was so far ahead of the television coverage that we knew whether it would be a ball, a strike, or a hit before the ball had left the pitcher’s hand. I realized deception was possible.”
The first segment of “September Clues”, which is subtitled, “The 911 News Media Coverage,” provides an instructive example. It starts with CNN footage in which, as the plane hits the building and begins to emerge from the opposite side, there is a “FADE TO BLACK!” On CBS, the wife of the producer reports observing the plane hit the building from her location in Chelsea. On FOX NEWS, a helicopter broadcast goes “FADE TO BLACK!” at the same point at which this occurred on CNN. As the voiceover explains, such events are important for multiple reasons, including:
(a) the “FADE TO BLACK!”s on CNN and FOX occur just as the nose of the plane is emerging from the opposite side of the building, as though an editor were seeking to cover the image;
(b) the announcer on CBS does not appear to notice any plane as it approaches the building, which would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to observe from Chelsea;
(c) microphones located on-site near the base of the South Tower failed to pick up sounds of any impact, which presumably would have caused significant auditory reverberations.
Point (a) is especially striking, Fetzer said. “The study points out that the nose of the plane exactly conforms to the nose of a Boeing 767, but this one had just passed through 200 feet of steel and concrete and should have been severely damaged if not completely destroyed. Pixel pattern comparison confirms the correspondence, which, under the circumstances, would be physically impossible.” The “FADE” takes place 0.28 seconds late, moreover, which appears consistent with human hand/eye response coordination.
They made a mistake they were unable to correct in time, Fetzer said. Six minutes later, CNN repeated the footage, but with the oddity that the network banner masked the appearance of the nose as it exited the building, as though that were not the most stunning feature of the video record. “That this was done provides powerful confirmation that the ‘FADE’ was a deliberate effort to conceal the occurrence of an event with the potential to reveal the deception. What’s the probability of two networks ‘fading’ at exactly the same moment of their ‘live’ coverage, if this was all on the level?”
Ace Baker’s “Chopper 5 Composite” substantiates these concerns with proof that the image of the plane was recorded separately from the image of the Twin Towers, Fetzer said. He discovered that, when variations induced by the helicopter’s motion are removed from the raw footage, apparent variations in aircraft speed that should be reduced are instead increased. Moreover, as the plane emerges from the building, the nose cone itself appears to accelerate and decelerate, repeatedly. That would not occur if this were an actual event being recorded on an authentic video.
The five other other segments of “September Clues” address other anomalies. “Part 2: The Flying Telephants,” for example, shows that various videos of the airplane’s approach are inconsistent with one another, where some show a smooth, perfectly horizontal trajectory into the building and others display a steep vertical descent before impact. A few show no plane at all. “This means they can’t all be authentic,” Fetzer observed, “but they could all be faked, which I would never have taken seriously before these studies.”
“September Clues, Part 5: 17 Seconds” shows that audio beeps that were 17 seconds apart were included in broadcasts from the major networks, apparently in order to synchronize the footage being used. In some cases, the networks kept the audio track of the impact on the South Tower, but changed the video track so the nose cone exit would not be seen. The difference between the official “time of impact” at 9:03:11 and the seismic effects recorded at 9:02:54 also turns out to be 17 seconds, which appears to have been the interval that created the opportunity for image manipulation.
Kevin Barrett, the founder of MUJCA and a member of Scholars, reports he is troubled by these new studies.“I guess I’ll have to take this possibility more seriously now,” Barrett said.“In the past, I have assumed video fakery was far-fetched and that anyone who endorsed it was probably a crackpot!Now I’m not so sure.”Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist in the Department of Labor of the Bush administration, has gone further, contributing a chapter to a new book from Scholars, The 9/11 Conspiracy, which argues video fakery may have been used to conceal the absence of planes actually impacting the building, a more controversial claim.
The most important question about these studies is that they might be fake videos of video fakery, but Fetzer thinks they are authentic. “I have the FAA Registry results for these four planes,” Fetzer said.“Not only were AA11 and AA77 not deregistered until January 20, 2002, but UA93 and UA175 were not deregistered until September 28, 2005, which is quite peculiar for planes that were destroyed on September 11, 2001. It raises the prospect none of them were involved in 9/11.”
The technology for extremely efficient video manipulation has been around for some time.The on-line journal, techreview.com, published a piece entitled “Lying with Pixels” (July/August 2000), explaining, “Seeing is no longer believing.The image you see on the evening news could well be a fake—a fabrication of fast new video manipulation technology.”An example is moving Katarina Witt in and out of an ice skating exhibition.It could already be done on TV in real time prior to 2000. That was a year before 9/11.
Similar delays occur on radio. “I called a friend recently after a show to ask what she thought, and she told me to ‘Hang on!’ because she was still listening." The question of motivation for such a complex deception may also have an answer. “I have been asked, ‘What are the chances that those planning the demolition of these buildings would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers to prepare the towers to begin falling precisely there?’” Fetzer said. “The answer may be 100%.”
Ace Baker mentions a group long convinced of video fakery, including Gerard Holmgren, Rosalee Grable, StillDiggin, Killtown, and others, who have been frustrated their arguments have not been taken seriously. “For that reason, I’m including this subject in a conference on ‘The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What’s Controversial, What’s Not,’ which will be held in Madison on August 3-5, 2007 (911scholars.org),” Fetzer said. “We are going do our best to get to the bottom of this. Truth about 9/11 is stranger than fiction.” (Seehttp://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/07/prweb541060.htm )
www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
McKnight Professor Emeritus,
University of Minnesota, Duluth;
Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth;
Editor, Assassination Research.
Every known 9/11 "airplane strike" video (both TV news and amateur recorded) is archived at this link. Every video shows the same thing: an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding into a steel/concrete building like it glides through the air.
Analysis of 9/11 TV newscasters on local NYC stations. Newscasters on two different channels were using the exact same phrases on a developing story on live TV. They were reading from a script... the same script:Octopus 8
Why is it that "tv fakery" is now inextricably linked to the "no plane theory"? You promote Sept Clues for tv fakery evidence, but then it tellsthe viewer that there were no planes.
WTC1 was on fire for around 20 minutes with all sorts of people watching it before the 2nd hit on WTC2. All it would've taken is one person with their camera aimed at the impact point to catch no plane (or something different that what we saw on tv) and the conspirators plan would've been foiled. It's ridiculous. The people on news clips saying that they saw no plane and just an explosion were obviously standing close to WTC2 on the opposite side of where the plane hit. The "nose-out pixel analysis" was done on the lowest possible quality video and was not checked by analyzing video from other angles. Watch Sept Clues with your brain on - and pay attention to how angles work on film. Remember, just because words flash on the screen during a video, it doesn't mean they're true!
by
Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 2:57:50 AM
...with an open mind instead of trying to refute TV-Fakery/No Plane Theory (NPT) in every which way, then you'd understand it.
You seem to make a lot of assumptions. i.e. you cannot assume that the reason people didn't see a plane is because they were too close. You must provide evidence and analysis.
Are you aware that some people reported missiles?
National Review has this quote:“I saw it," he says, "It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb — uh, a missile. This could be World War III."
The BBC reports:I distinctly remember somebody saying: “A missile just hit the trade center, I saw a missile hit.”
According to a CNN transcript, a reporter said:a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west.An eyewitness also states:I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange.
What you don't understand is that the 9/11 perpetrators control the 9/11 Truth Movement. They control what theories become popular. They control what theories get shunned. The reason you think NPT is crazy is because you've been conditioned to do so. No other reason.
TV-Fakery / No Plane Theory (NPT) is the most important issue of 9/11. Why? Because it implicates the corporate mediadirectlyas being the actual orchestrators of the attacks. Yes... the orchestrators. It was the media who scared America into a war with the Middle East and into supporting the Patriot Act.
Yes, the military, Directed Energy Professional Society, and others, were responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. But the direct involvement of the corporate media cannot be overlooked.
Impeaching Bush will do nothing in the long run, although it is a necessary start. The people who run the country need to be removed from power. These individuals do not reside in the White House, but in high-level positions in private companies and organizations. i.e. Disney (parent of ABC), General Electric (parent of NBC), The Federal Reserve, Directed Energy Professional Society, and countless others.
TV-Fakery / NPT is the most important issue about 9/11.
People must learn that they cannot trust the media at all.
Did you read the Technology Review magazine article "Lying With Pixels", linked above? It details how the military and corporate media can insert prerecorded images into live feed for the purpose of altering world politics. Read the article!
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 353 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 4:37:43 PM
Is it physically possible for an aluminum airplane (and with a plastic nosecone at that!) to glide into a steel/concrete building? The answer is NO.
It doesn't matter how many witnesses there are. The Laws of Physics wins over witnesses every time. Besides, it has already been explained to you that the eyewitness statements are conflicting. Some saw big planes, some saw small planes. Some saw missiles, some saw nothing at all, just an explosion. It seems you want to dismiss the conflicting testimony just to suit your predetermined conclusion. Do you know what that is called?Pathological Science.
I know someone who said she saw (from her downtown Manhattan office) a plane go in one side of the south tower and pop out the other. Since this is not physically possible, she's either mistaken, or saw a projection.
Watch the ending of the Octopus 8 video I linked to above. You'll see one of your so-called eyewitnesses, in a dark suit. He is nothing more than an actor. If you look closely, you will see that this performance was given in a studio and the WTC background was simply tacked on. LOL to you!
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 353 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 6:49:55 PM
When I said to pay attention to how angles work on film, I didn't mean for the "nose-out" shot, I mean in all of Sept Clues. Also the 17 sec delay in the official time could be because they're going based off the time on the tv news videos. The beep, ka-cha, etc. discussed in Sept Clues could have been from an NY electrical disturbance, satellite disturbance or... dare I say, and artifact from the recording machines at archive.org. Ah, whatever, I just say we stick to what we can prove.
by
Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 3:11:59 AM
1) Fireball is delayed - impossible for a fuel laden plane - it would ignite on impact
2) Largest fireball comes out of the SIDE of the building.
3) Plane's tail does not break off on impact.
4) No large wreckage falls to the ground.
Plenty of other anomalies too. And which witnesses, when seeing the news footage in the evening would then afterwards say "I never saw the plane! They're broadcasting fake footage!" Not many witnesses would believe the news would broadcast fake footage - they would assume they missed seeing the plane.
by
Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 3:39:43 AM
It was going 500 mph and crashed into an office building; how could you know what phenomena to expect? Besides, the infamous "flash" (which can be seen before impact on all the videos of the second hit and on the Naudet video of the 1st hit) has never been explained and could account for the fireball.
by
Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 3:52:53 AM
Circular reasoning is the practice of assuming something, in order to prove the very thing that you assumed. In Logic-speak, you assume that proposition A is true, and use that premise (directly or indirectly) to prove that proposition A is true. This is one of many logical fallacies that routinely get used in heated arguments, and is actually a special case of the fallacy of false assumptions.
Circular reasoning is very useful because anything at all can be proved with it, including things that are obviously false. This delightful property is easily provable, and is shown how below:
For example, take the statement 'Circular Reasoning can be used to prove anything.'
Now, clearly this statement is part of anything.
Therefore, because 'Circular Reasoning can be used to prove anything', the statement can be proved.
Therefore 'Circular Logic can be used to prove anything.'
by
Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 1:54:14 PM
What you don't understand is that I have already developed the conclusion that the planes are faked, based on crash physics that show that high speed would only increase deformation of the weaker aluminum, based on planted evidence, and based on the video anamolies. September Clues could be proven wrong and I still would not believe that Boeing 767s disappeared inside the Towers as claimed.
I was not trying to prove that conclusion to you, because the conclusion is self-evident to anyone not brainwashed by the media and by conformity, and explaining is not going to do any good.
All I was saying was that your claimed velocity of 500 mph is derived from the videos. What you don't understand is that speed doesn't help your argument, because steel is stronger, denser, and harder than aluminum, and the kinetic energy of a faster impact would be expended in greater deformation of the aluminum, not in greater load on the steel.
by
Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 10:38:41 PM
I never said that a Boeing 767 did either; there was a burning 737 engine found down in the street. How could you have possibly done an intellectually honest study on the physics of the crash when there are tons of variables that you couldn't possibly take into account? The side of the WTC wasn't a flat piece of steel, it was steel grating as seen in the photos of the building. According to your description, the aluminum would've been shredded by the steel and then passed into the building through all the large open areas; but hey, I'm not claiming to be a physics expert.
Ningen, there hasn't been a scientific paper written on the so-called physics that you're referring to. Fetzer and others aren't pushing any specific physics - they're pushing Sept Clues! I'm just trying to show that this is an incredibly weak argument and is clearly being successfully used to discredit the movement in the eyes of many - I've seen it happen!
by
Jack Kemp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 11:14:29 PM
I would take the witness argument a little further, Some people that saw nothing or something other than a plane could be affected by post0event information - the faked broadcasts and people talking about the faked broadcasts - and develop false memories they would strongly hold. Professor Elizabeth Loftus has studied and written about this phenomenon.
by
Ningen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 6:03:25 AM
Once again we see good people who seek the truth about 9/11 arguing with one another. This plays into the hands of the perpetrators.
The thing that matters is that the three buildings were brought down with explosives. That has been proven beyond doubt. See peer reviewed articles here: http://journalof911studies.com/
The fact that the US admin has totally denied the use of explosives is proof of complicity. Nothing more is needed for action and action is what is sorely needed if we are to avoid attacking Iran.
How do you get action? Polititions won't move unless the public is 70% in favour. How do you get 70% in favour? By putting a good case on solid scientific evid
