This update will look at the bones of contention between the latest truther players bringing the movement forward, or backward, I'm not sure which. There is a wide body of truthers (conspiracy nuts, just like me) who oppose Simon Shack's view that the 9-11 video of the towers was 100% faked from the start, and that no one but eye-witnesses saw the buildings fall in the true way that they did. Some truthers suspect that Shack (a no-planes advocate) is working for the other side. For example, the truther who writes the below suggests that Shack's purpose is to make no-planes advocates look stupid. I wouldn't go that far, and it can be construed as very nutty to do so. I know little of Mr. Shack's views, but he seems to have reasons for this particular position, and while difficult, I'm open to his comments and findings, even if he's wrong (I think he is) on the central bone of contention. It's the civilized way to approach this.In all the images I've seen that supposedly random people took of the south-tower plane coming in, from distant shots at times, I don't recall seeing any of the few helicopters in the air. Even the helicopter cameras don't capture any of the helicopters. The idea seems to be that they were late in arriving, and were still a few miles away when the south-tower plane came in. One of the live shots, the one with the right-to-left moving nose-out shot, was from a helicopter supposedly four to five miles away.
All of the news helicopters were positioned such that none of them could see the south face of WTC2. This is because making a real-time composite of an airplane going through the wall of a tower is impossible. They carefully planned to position the cameras in such a way as to make live compositing possible, as I have explained.http://acebaker.blogspot.ca/2008/11/simon-shack-pushing-video-fakery.html
The "as I have explained" phrase in the quote above has a link to this page from Ace Baker:
No airplane crashed into either Twin Tower. The various videos which depict a plane entering a building, such as Naudet, CNN Ghostplane, Evan Fairbanks, Luc Courchesne, and Spiegel TV, show just that -- a plane entering a wall. They are devoid of the crash physics we would expect from an aluminum aircraft interacting with a steel and concrete structure. The plane does not twist, bend, break, explode or slow down. A certain frame of the CNN video shows no damage to the wall, after the wing of the airplane has passed through.http://acebaker.blogspot.ca/2008/05/theory-of-live-911-airplane-composites.html
Does Ace sound like an insider? Is he making statements like these in an effort to find acceptance within the truther movement so that he might bring truthers to a distraction??? Shackers are claiming just that.
How could anyone ignore "no damage to the wall, after the wing of the airplane has passed through"? How could the media ignore this excellent argument? Why does the media not give the day of light to no-planers on the merits of this one argument alone? Ace will explain it. He and Shack agree on the winking participation of the media in this crime of crimes, a massive point of agreement.
Since when do insiders posing as truthers point the guilty finger at the media? Wouldn't this upset the media which did the bidding of the insiders? Would the insiders really send their under-cover boys out to make the media uncomfortable in this way? Is that any way for the insiders to repay the media for its ongoing part? No, and it would make the media less willing to support the insiders in the ongoing cover-up.
A frame is a frame. It's there to see. It's not a figment of the imagination. The frame can be viewed over and over again, like a photograph. If it shows no damage to the building after the plane has slipped through, it's a real frame from a faked video. What's there not to understand? How could the media not give these boys credibility? Why do these boys want credibility and media attention? Is it really because they have big egos, as the insiders will tell you? Or are they ordinary people who are naturally crying wolf as rightly they should?
Since when did CNN get into the business of supporting the government's mass murderers? I see clearly what's going on. It's no small revelation what the goon club has submitted to us, thanks to 9-11. While people knew, before 9-11, that the "major media" tended to take sides with certain, sinful circles, this event put the media into the mass-murder category. It's not the major media in bed with those of merely a political slant, but in bed with something heinous, and in opposition to the common people to whom they say such things as "the most trusted news..." We have arrived to the makings of Armageddon. When I was a child, I felt so lucky to be living in a world with technological achievements. Suddenly, we find that these "miracles" are the machinery along the path to Armageddon, operated by a world class controlled by demons, literally.
There are two possibilities in how they faked the in-coming plane in the live videos: 1) as Ace believes, that the video was shot live on 9-11, with the plane prepared in advance and added to the live shot; 2) as Simon Shack believes, that the whole was prepared in advance. It's okay to be wrong, no criticism called for. It doesn't mean that no one will listen to you anymore if you admit error.
Shack says: Note: CNN apparently had barely one camera operating in New York that morning and kept airing images "Courtesy of" their rivals ABC and WNYW-FOX5... It's a good point, even though CNN may be able to give a good excuse / reason. It's a good point because sharing the same shots live is to be expected if there was a prepared-in-advance "show" that major networks were directed to feed us. Shack enlarges on the point in his work, though I'm not familiar with it nor can I view his September Clues video at this time (takes too long to load here at home). http://www.septemberclues.info/tv_chopper.shtml
For a good run-down on his ideas, see how Andrew Johnson, the who helped Simon start a website, ended up frowning on him, but note too that Andrew supports Judy Wood whose ideas seem blatantly impossible. I regret these divisions as they have turned into a seething war. Later in the update, I actually entertain Judy Woods wacky idea, but in a different form:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60The bone of contention with Shack is from those whom explained the fall of the towers by planned demolition, or by a direct-energy input (Judy's idea), only for him to come along to say that the towers didn't really fall as we saw them in the live broadcasts.
As you can imagine, many people were taking videos of the burning north tower. We therefore expect many videos of the south-tower plane coming in, which is why many were produced (as fakes) later on. If they were genuine, it's likely they would have been released earlier. But we would also expect many videos of the towers falling. I don't know whether there were any or many alternative-to-the-news images of the towers falling. One would think that the goons produced a few. I imagine that Shack has them all, and has compared them, seeking inconsistencies.
But one thing lacking in the news was a story and discussion of the fall of Building 7. I can't imagine anyone with a sensible thinking pattern not becoming suspicious of that one thing alone. There was no jet fuel in Building 7, and yet it came down too. There is no sensible explanation aside from a man-made method of taking it down. But it came down late in the afternoon on 9-11, meaning that the explosives team was in there before 9-11. What is there not to understand? How could the goons think they could get away with this? by controlling the thinking patterns of the masses, the job of the news and other media that the upper circle is teamed with.
They scored a great victory, yet they exposed themselves. In the long run, it's a loss. Vast numbers of people are now aware of what goes on in the upper circles who wouldn't have listened to Christians and their Illuminati "bunk" prior. The sentiments of the people who couldn't trust their politicians with such things as corruption and adultery are now aware that the problem is much worse. Outside of the American borders, people are listening, and that's where it hurts the goons most, for they had hoped to score overseas with their intrusions, now ground to a halt. But if the goon club cannot put their too-much-money overseas anymore, they will put it at home to destroy their enemies there, the truthers. Beware.
The goon club needs to understand one thing that they are incapable of: God has ultimate control of their plans.
The military / FBI / CIA has an arm tasked with forming deception through videos. Any faked scenario can be created with a purpose behind it. The military / FBI / CIA and the video together have the purpose of deceiving the American public in order to acquire funds for various programs, and, of course, the funds can be hijacked for other purposes...part-and-parcel with typical corruption. It would be much better to elect, as presidents, honest, sensible men off the streets than to elect a candidate advanced by either political party. Better an inexperienced man than a corrupt one belonging to the mass murderers. Better a man that gets little done politically that does not waste the money than an Obama wasting more money to the point of ruinous.
The catching of the media behind the 9-11 hoax is the single-most important point in all the investigations by truther teams. The disaster has come and gone, and the out-cropping Middle-Eastern event has by-and-large subsided, but the media, willing and zealous to perform the bidding of some higher circle, is still here, still working to send disinformation into our minds. Whatever the perpetrators are doing today can be enhanced by their media arms. It's a dangerous world with powers having such powers. Do not become a news-junky couch potato unless you want your mind filled with illusions. Watch the news, fine, but don't sit in trust of all you hear, and don't become its friend. There are decisions made from the top on how any issue will be framed for the public before it goes out to it. Opinions such as those of Bill O'Reilly may or may not be his own.
Where videos of the south-tower plane approaches and entries were faked, the owners of the videos are legally liable. If a network claims to have created even one of the videos, what are the no-planers waiting for before taking them to court? What fear could they possibly have? We know it. It's obvious. The goons have money enough to kill and get away with it unheard of. How will this problem be solved? The Hiding Eye in the Sky.
For the benefit of Christian persecution, the media needs to succumb to a heavy public backlash not from Christians.
If you were the devil, your job would be to turn every truthful thing into mud. You would apply yourself to this mission until you got to be a master. You would become proud of your achievements in this regard. It has been going on in western society, through sons of the devil, since the advent of evolution, in what was called the "Enlightenment." You would be far better off to turn off the media, and to think for yourself. Your mind will become healthy again, providing that you are aware of evil spirits amongst us, and reject their impulses. Let the word of God change you. You will be armed with truth, and an understanding of what goes on in the world. But if the American masses turn God off, he will cease to protect them from what now rules over them. They will be destroyed eventually, yes, but at the same time that the unbelievers in general are destroyed. They will be considered one lot at that time, ironically. If you truly want to be on the side of good, put trust in a good God now hiding from the nations, now allowing the worst to come to fruition.
The following was added to an update a couple of weeks ago:
At first, I didn't know why some truthers claim that the nose is coming out from inside the building, as that is not necessarily indicated by what I'm seeing. The plane could be passing by the building on the far side. But a couple of weeks after this update, I came across the video at the page below showing the plane's nose coming out what looks like the opposite side of the building. This is the production of the insiders, however, after they temporarily decided to go with the idea of a plane exiting the other side. See 5th update of this month for more on this.
http://acebaker.blogspot.ca/2008/06/chopper-5-and-missing-shadow.html]One would think that, when a news organization spotted this long part of the plane coming out the other side of the building, they would alert the people to the hoax. Instead, the nose was removed and the scene was aired differently from that point on, with no emphasis from any media, not even from the rival media. Forgive me if this nose-out scene from Gamma Press is old hat to you; this is the first I've seen of it.
The nose actually casts a shadow on the building, revealing that the insiders had decided to go with this plane-out scenario. My take is that, after the initial blunder (the helicopter image showing the plane moving right to left of the picture) that allowed the public to see the nose, they got into a telephone-conference huddle to decide what next to do with the embarrassing situation. They decided to go with the idea that the plane exited on the other side, and therefore aired the Gamma video, complete with shadow. There would not be a shadow in the initial mistake, and indeed there was not one. The shadow is evidence of a human attempt to permit the mistake as a natural occurrence on that day in spite of its great implausibility.
It tells us much that this mistake was made at all. It's probably Ace's finest argument for his position versus the Shack position.
The page shows the right-to-left nose-out as well, without the shadow at first, and then with the shadow after they decided to run with it. But the goons (this is a very kind word), on second thought, decided that this idea just wouldn't fly with the public, and so they wisely removed the nose-out altogether...the damage thus being done most harshly against them. They can fool their sinful groupies, the naive, CNN and Fox worshipers, and those who have yet to look at the gamut of evidence against them, but they won't fool us all. Their names are about to be made known. This is not going away. They had better run and hide, or commit suicide, because this is not going away. No one will have pity on them. Their family members will look at them differently. It is important to name the individuals, not just the corporations or the governments in general.
Just think of the utter wickedness here, of a Fox media -- that wants your trust -- going along with this mass-murdering sham. There was no way to fake the deaths of all those people crushed to death. They were in that building. The media doesn't seem to mind supporting their higher circle in spite of such murders. How could you ever watch another Fox news program without feeling sick? What's there to be enchanted about? Where is Fox taking your head?
Here's a page by Ace Baker on the nose-out, inserting a second plane to scale for you to compare size with the one "in" the building. In a nutshell, he shows that the nose is too large to be anything on the plane other than the nose. Anyone, even the president of the United States, who denies that this is a faked video, is not to be trusted with your children. Your children know that this is a faked video as soon as you tell them that the news people removed the plane/nose from the scene. You are being taken for fools by your own president, America.
http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Pinocchio%E2%80%99s_NoseAce shows how compositing upon a layer of video works by first producing a "transparent" sky whereas nothing else in the image is transparent. It's transparent to a second video superimposed upon it. That is, the second video with a plane (taken before 911 and not likely at the towers) is visible only within the "transparent" part of the picture, which in this case happens to be the sky. It doesn't fly "into" the building but "behind" it. It will be visible when it passes by the building, unless they arrange for it not to be. They failed to do that. Afterward, they created a scene with the plane seemingly coming out of the building itself (shadow and all) because they failed to hide the one in the layered shot. Note that there are three different nose-outs on the same page, and that the angle of the nose shadows are not the same in the two with plane from left to right.
The goons are caught red-handed, and have thus been working hard to salvage themselves, which is only the first phase of their eternal punishment. You need not worry about their receiving their due punishment; you need to worry about what else they will do before the Appointed Time arrives. It's not likely that the central group will be disbanded before Armageddon.
One of the nose-outs belongs to the French company, Naudet, which was, not by coincidence, the only one to capture the north-tower plane striking "live." The latter was so miraculous that it was an obvious fake. The company was supposedly filming some trivial thing on the street, when, looking up, they pretended to hear an airplane. Something like a second later, the cameraman has his camera squarely on the top of the north tower the split-second before the plane got to it. He supposedly had no idea where the plane was going, yet his camera ended up at the north tower anyway. Things like this can happen in the realm of possibilities, but, in this case, it can be chalked up to obvious fakery. Naudet is complicit with this crime. What is there not to understand? Can an American sue a French company?
I dare say that, the truther movement has killers of its own that will become employed should the other side start to use them. The goons do not know where their worst enemies lie, even within their own household. Ahh, the day of vengeance, when their own killers screw up and reveal who sent them.
The nose in the Gamma Press video is soon covered with a LONG (i.e. same shape as the fuselage) flame-and-smoke combination, a very-obvious attempt to hide the nose. Yet the nose never falls to the ground or outside of the smoke, for obvious reason. It was never there, in the real world. What a desperate, incomprehensible picture, unless it's faked video. Did you spot the fast black object that appears to come ground-ward on a diagonal from behind the north tower?
Ace's page above shows the image below, after the goons decided not to go with the nose-out. It shows the north face of the south tower (almost an hour after the plane hit), and has a blue circle where the nose was shown coming out. There is no hole at all there (of the size of the nose that supposedly came out) in the building. No, world, you did not really see what the networks aired in front of your own nose; it was just an illusion, and you are to continue life as usual with that belief, otherwise you too will be plunged into the nut category...which could ruin your happy life. You might stunt your ability to schmooze with society as though all were dandy on the road to a bright future.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911SouthNoHole.pngBy the way, the height of each storey in the image is less than three column spacings, that being less than three meters = 9.85, a gross error (see last update for undeniable evidence of storeys 12.5 tall). When the cladding measures .4 centimeter wide, it is 1.8 centimeters tall, which works out to 2.2 feet (24.4 inches), and yet the cladding should only be about 18 inches wide. It's also notable that there are both short and long pieces of cladding below the damaged area. I've not seen that before. A long piece combined with a short piece constitute one storey, by the looks of it.
I was just reading the very immature Steve Wright, as he rails against Ace Baker; he's of typical-insider tack to shoot the messenger rather than the message. When the situation is hopeless in shooting down the message, there is no option but to make people believe Ace is a liar, a lunatic, whatever. The following is one of Wright's nicer rants, with a meritorious point, however:
The final nail in Baker's silly coffin [according to who?] is Wright's conundrum, which goes like this: If there exists even one authentic news video, camcorder video, photograph, or eye witness to the planes hitting the towers, then the planes are proven. However, to prove no planes, then every single news video, camcorder video, photograph, and eye witness must be fake. To fake these hundreds of different sources plus keep the perpetrators of those fakes silent all these years is absurd on the face of it. Just like Ace Baker.http://acebaker.blogspot.ca/2008/06/exchange-with-steve-wright.html
It's a valid argument but hardly deserving the confidence that Wright uses in standing behind it. First of all, the goons have much government money; securing 200 fake videos with 200 faked witnesses is a drop in the bucket if it salvages this blunder. Secondly, no one would question the authenticity of the witnesses if not for the evidence that planes have been faked. Mr. Wright needs to begin first with the obvious evidence, and then ask how the witnesses were faked. That is the logical thing to do. Wright is arguing that the sheer numbers, and their remaining quiet, is evidence that planes struck the building in spite of the nose, and in spite of its gone-missing in the news that once carried it.
So long as there is the possibility of such a thing as a false eye witness, the indisputability of the faked video, and other evidence in support of no planes, makes it indisputable that all publicized witnesses were either deliberately false or misrepresenting the facts unwillfully or by something along the lines of coersion. If there is the possibility of one false witness, why not a dozen or more? Wright mentions "all these years," enough time for the desperados to fabricate many faked eye-witness videos, pictures, etc. The more desperate their case, the more false witnesses they are predicted to secure, afterwhich they will come out to say something like, "To fake these hundreds of different sources plus keep the perpetrators of those fakes silent all these years is absurd on the face of it. Just like Ace Baker." Yawn.
In November of 2008, Ace Baker is quoted as saying that, aside from videos from chopper 5 and 7:
...approximately 40 more videos of the same event emerged. At least 4 of these later videos depict an airplane entering the wall of the tower [it took that long for genuine people to give up the scene of the century???]...Ordinarily, television news stations keep archives of all significant news events. For a standard fee, clips are available to use in such things as documentary movies. However, broadcast-quality copies of 9/11 airplane videos appear unavailable at any price. In March 2008, I contacted WNYW television and requested to license a broadcast-quality copy of Chopper 5 for use in my upcoming documentary film. Isaura Nunez, head of public affairs for WNYW, confirmed that their archive department did have the footage, but declined my request, saying only "Unfortunately, we will be unable to participate in this project" [talk to our lawyers].
It's not just me. Broadcast-quality Chopper 5 footage has never appeared in any documentary, or anywhere at all after 9/11. The two copies that survive are both home-recorded lower quality versions posted on the internet. Broadcast-quality would allow even better analysis than what has been presented here. If you are still inclined to be skeptical about no plane crashes, I ask you: Why would the media conceal the best versions of these videos, if not to cover-up evidence of digital compositing?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15544&pid=10758810&mode=threaded&start=
If the eye witnesses are so reliable, why would networks withhold their recorded eye-witness testimony? Mr. Wright, where's your smart-ass explanation for that? Why would the Wrights of the world stress the eye-witness videos of those arising after 9-11 when the primary, over-ruling topic is the fallacious videos on that very day of the disaster, and produced by the "most trusted"? Forget the videos that came later if the ones on that very day were faked. Mr. Wright is a fabricator, a steward of the wrong. And he knows it.
Baker comes back to Wright with a winning hand: "Even one provably fake video proves no-planes. CNN ghostplane is a freaking fake. It's physically impossible. No planes."That's a valid argument. Yet Ace has more than one video proving fakery:
The CNN Ghostplane footage also has suspicious editing. A version first aired on CNN late on the evening of 9/11. The "complete" version appeared in the documentary "CNN -- America Remembers". We see an airplane come into frame, glide effortlessly into the building with no apparent damage to the plane. A full second later, the building explodes from within, and the fireball expands.Then, there is an edit [= splice, missing footage] in the video. After an unknown amount of time, picture returns, and there is a gaping, airplane shaped hole in the wall. Suspiciously, we never see the columns breaking and the hole forming in the side of the tower. What is in the missing footage?
In the "America Remembers" version of Ghostplane, a man's voice, with a middle-eastern accent, close to the microphone, and presumably photographer Michael Hezarkhani says, "Oh my God. A plane just flew into the building". However, during the original airing of the footage on 9/11, on CNN television, which did include audio, no such voice is heard. Obviously the voice was added to the documentary version. Why?
...The observations are consistent with the video composite hypothesis. The overdubbed voice would simply be taking the opportunity to reinforce the illusion of an airplane. The airplane-shaped hole is formed by explosives after the time when the alleged airplane is supposed to have passed through.
...In 2007 9/11 researcher Jeff Hill called alleged Ghostplane videographer Michael Hezarkhani. Hill was asking straightforward questions, such as the location the video was shot from. Hezarkhani refused to discuss it on advice of his attorney, saying only to contact CNN. Allegedly Hezarkhani was a tourist in New York on 9/11. Why isn't he allowed to talk about his famous amateur footage?
...It is not consistent with the real plane hypothesis, because if the plane in his video is real, he should be allowed to talk.
Who really is it that looks guilty? It's not at all known for certain that this "tourist" took the video. Perhaps he was paid to say that he was the owner. Can we image the media heads in a series of conspiratorial meetings with military and other government agencies where the plot is discussed or even planned? It's a national disaster that hasn't yet fully taken place.
Why doesn't someone take Hezarkhani to court, if he says his lawyer won't allow him to speak? Merely the start of a court case -- before it ever gets to trial -- could bring out the fact that the video didn't truly belong to him. What are the truthers waiting for? Do they lack money or a game plan to remain safe while going to court? Would Hezarkhani be willing to go to court feigning that the video belonged to him? Only in his worst nightmare.
Under these dangerous circumstances -- dangerous for the goon club -- do you think for a moment that the NSA would be undressed (by Obama) of its full powers not to spy on truthers daily, fully, without a warrant? Watch your backs. They are very cruel.
Look at this, Mr. Wright, and cringe; weep for your beloved goons, because their laughter is all but a fakery too, like when a dying soul tries to smile out the corner of the mouth, but it just doesn't convince:
During the Pinocchio's Nose event in Chopper 5, the picture quickly fades to black. The fade takes place over 3 video frames, about 1/10 of a second (fig. 32).Chopper 5 -- History's defining moment, and picture fades to black? [What a great point]
This is bizarre on its face, because ordinarily there are no fades-to-back in live news. News switchers are trained to switch between shots, not fade. And they are trained to switch to something, anything, other than black.
How can this fading on the live news be understood as anything but "oops, best not show this." But don't take my word for it, because I'm just a conspiracy nut. Take the word of the photographer responsible:
The cameraman onboard Chopper 5 was Kai Simonsen. In a conversation with Jeff Hill, Simonsen was asked about the fade to black. He stated that the effect was caused by his engaging a 2X lens extender at that moment.Said Simonsen, "You're seeing the edge of the extender pass over the focal point."
It is certainly interesting to hear from the person who was there, but the lens extender explanation is impossible. Passing the edge of an object across the focal point, be it a lens extender or anything else, will darken the picture unevenly. We simply do not see this. We see the entire picture very evenly fading down to black.
Also, a 2X lens extender will magnify the picture and change the focus, that being its purpose. A half second later, when picture fades back up from black, there is no change in magnification or focus. No lens extender was engaged [i.e. Simonsen was lying].
The fade to black was exactly what it appeared to be: A fade to black. The only remaining question is whether it was an accident, or intentional. Accidents do happen, but given the training of network news broadcast switchers, it is very unlikely. The fact that supporters of the airplane hypothesis, such as Steve Wright and Kai Simonsen, go out of their way to offer alternative ideas, false though they must be, ultimately serves to reinforce the conclusion that an accidental fade-to-black is not plausible.
I like the latter argument, that since Wright and the photographer himself lied concerning the reason, while not arguing an accidental fade to black, they helped to establish their own guilt...once the Ace Bakers of the world come out swinging. Mr Baker needs to be appreciated for more than his good head, for risking his life in this way. He may be eccentric, and he may be motivated by hatred for government, but on this cause he's attacking it by the horns. After saying the above, he treads on the serpent's head with a one-liner: "Here is the live airplane sequence from CNN, who were showing a version of the ABC Chopper 7 footage. They too incorporate a blackout." The laughter on my face is not at all forced at this moment. It's as true as the goons wish their videos were.
The truth is obvious. The media got caught with its hand in the kook-ie jar. It's not the Ace's of the world that are the kooks. You can't have two accidental fade to black at the same second from two different camera operators because there was yet a third. They didn't all accidentally stick their extenders or their fingers or the tips of their demonic horns in the camera view at the same time. Ace doesn't stop while treading on the serpent's head, but goes on the skin it: "...The CNN blackout occurs during the same time as the Chopper 5 blackout, which is also the same time that is missing from the Naudet footage. All three of these blackouts occur within ¼ of a second of each other." One twists reality by arguing that this had nothing to do with covering up the unwanted nose. Ace delivers the straight goods. The media leaders are worthy of jail for life, and Hell after that. Should we care? Ask the dead.
As all nose-out scenes were re-vamped and finally removed altogether, I don't know what better evidence you need to see for yourself that this plane did not strike the building. It's a testament to how a society can be controlled to the point of utter zombie status. The networks are guilty of changing the scene, and yet the zombies remain incapable / unwilling of seeing the truth. They trust in the false-witness reports; otherwise, the goon club has nothing. In a court of law, the goons have nothing but the witnesses. It's the only thing Caiaphas had against Jesus, and these witnesses convinced the goon squad of His day to maximize his punishment.
The 9-11 sham is not to be treated as in the past. The same that created it are still there, evolving, changing personalities, modifying their agenda, but still predicted to be back with a vengeance. What is needed is a court case that the media cannot ignore. Here's Ace, willing to take his case to court, if only he sees the right conditions:
Dear all,Please ask yourself why 1-18 are not in evidence in either Reynolds v the world, or Wood v the world, or Steven Jones v the world.
I highly doubt any defendants would be desirous of my testimony in your case, Judy [Wood], but if called, by any party, I would testify as follows:
1. I, Alexander Collin "Ace" Baker am a 47 year old professional musician living in Sherman Oaks, California.
2. I have expertise in video production, editing, and special effects processing.
3. I have broad general knowledge of the events of 9/11/01.
4. I have produced the world's leading scientific analysis of the apparent motion of the airplane image in the WNYW FOX 5 live news broadcast at 9:02-9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001, footage otherwise known as "Chopper 5".
5. Based on my research, the motion of the airplane image in Chopper 5 becomes more unstable after the video sequence is stabilized.
6. In authentic airplane videos, the motion of an airplane image must become more stable after the video sequence is stabilized.
7. Based on my research, a real airplane would be present in the opening 170 video frames of the Chopper 5 video.
8. There is no airplane visible in the opening 170 frames of the Chopper 5 video.
9. Based on my research, the nose of the airplane appears to emerge from the back side of WTC2 in the Chopper 5 video.
10. It is physically impossible for the nose of a real airplane to emerge from the back side of WTC2, or any steel framed hi-rise building. Also, there was no "exit wound" present on the back side of WTC2 where an airplane nose would have come out.11. A "layer mask" is a video software tool which allows one area in a video to become transparent, making any video object which enters this "layer mask" area invisible. A false airplane image escaping a layer mask is the only reasonable explanation for the "nose out" observation in the Chopper 5 video.
12. Based on my research, a video technician faded the picture to black after realizing the nose of a false airplane image escaped the "layer mask"...
13. The Chopper 5 footage was never replayed, indicating "mens rea" (a guilty mind).
14 The Chopper 5 footage was replaced on the official government archive with completely different footage, indicating "mens rea" (a guilty mind).
...
30. In my opinion, the so-called "official story" of 9/11 is not only false, it is physically impossible, and provably so.Sincerely,
Ace Baker
http://acebaker.blogspot.ca/2008/03/ace-baker-declaration-in-911-lawsuits.html
It's important to support these people, or at least hope that they amputate the arms of the upper circle, to weaken their reach for the coming battle against us. In planned warfare, one never alerts the other side as to the day of striking, but instead seeks to create a false sense of peace before striking.
I'm seeing that those who oppose Ace would have you do the same at their mere use of "moron" or "absurd." It's one thing to be skeptical of the nose-out video (I don't see how, since it was aired on the news), but to call him a moron is something I'd expect from an insider. The idea, truly, must be to pit American versus American so that the people will not be as united against the perpetrators. Whenever you read a moron word against a logical argument, you know that it's not a genuine opinion. A genuine opinion sounds more like, "You know, all of those witnesses can't be all wrong, but that nose-out sure does look suspicious. I don't get it, I'm confused." But if someone says that it's utterly ludicrous, coming from complete morons, that's how you can identify the scrap of the insider zone. It even sounds like scrap. There is no logic in demonizing someone who uses the nose-out videos. It's as plain as the nose on the building's face. What is there not to understand?
There are people who simply deny that what came out of the building was the plane's nose, adding error to error. Whatever it is that's coming past the building's wall looks just like a long fuselage; it's timing in passing the far wall is relatively perfect in regards to the timing of it's "entering" the building. What's there not to understand? What else could it be if it's not the fuselage? There is nothing as large as the fuselage inside the fuselage. The thing that comes past the wall is as large as the fuselage. If you're going to deny that it's the fuselage, don't stop there; tell us what you think it could be. If you haven't got an answer, then why do you think it can't be the fuselage? Where is your logic exactly? Or are you just having a hard time believing / accepting / admitting that the video is a fake due to the gamut of evidence to the contrary? Isn't that the truth?
I've just taken a look at a few ideas by those who deny that it's a fuselage. They admit it's some sort of plane debris but ignore the difficulty of the plane getting through the first wall let alone a piece of debris getting through a second. If anyone worth his salt is going to claim that it's plane debris of another kind, they are required to state what debris it could be; otherwise they may as well say nothing. People aren't going to take them seriously. There are not many options because the steel columns have gaps of about 26 inches. The thing that's coming out the building is much larger, but pieces of fuselage are ruled out because they can't break through the columns large enough or in such good shape. We know the item "coming out" is not a seat, nor a toilet, nor suitcase, engine or wheel. What could it be, so long and so-much like a fuselage???
Ace goes on:
15. The CNN - Michael Hezarkhani footage shows a plane entering a tower with no damage, to either the plane or the tower.
16. A later frame in the same video shows a clearly visible hole in the tower.
17. Therefore, in light of 15 and 16, the tower damage was created at a later point in time than when the airplane image appeared to pass effortlessly through the wall.He sees it the way I do, not because we are especially intelligent. If the plane didn't make the hole, something else did. We are just simply so bright, aren't we?
At the end of the post at the page below, an administrator for pilotsfor911truth.org takes a stab at the no-planes theory, seeking to minimize it's importance, lamenting that it will set the media forever against truthers, and that it plays into the hands of the perpetrators. I have a problem with truthers who wish to sweep certain truths under the carpet, as if they/we ought to advance a false picture in order to benefit the truther cause in the long run. I'm looking a little cross-eyed right now at Pilots for 911 Truth:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15544&pid=10758896&mode=threaded&start=#entry10758896There are only two posts on the page, one by Ace Baker, and one by "Sanders," the administrator speaking what I relayed above. He's definitely taking a shot at Ace's post, "WHAT IF ... there were no planes...SO WHAT???...Whoop - de - doo!!!!" The spirit behind this person not right. Look to the margin beside Ace's post and you will see, "Banned."
With all the work going into finding the facts, Sanders seems very willing to deny them for certain purposes. The post was in late 2008, meaning that, at that time, the no-planes theory was still grounded. It's adherents were told to go sit with their faces to the corner at the back of the room, as humiliating punishment for upsetting the class.
Now think about this. There was no plane at the south tower. All there was is the explosion that caused the hole. In the third update of this month, I featured a photo (below) supposedly by the camera of one David Handschuh, an insider and fellow criminal in my opinion, showing south-tower debris, caused by the explosion, flying out and away from the building at the plane-impact location...what one would expect from explosives in the walls. It appears that pieces of cladding are in the air.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911David.jpgTo this picture, add Ace's comment:
[as per the CNN/Michael Hezarkhani video] I used 7 frames from the "approach" and "impact", then cut to one frame of the gaping smoking hole...Note that there is a discontinuity in the source video between the explosion and the gaping hole. We have no clue how much time may have elapsed, because AFAIK, all of the approximately 7 million 9/11 plane videos stop right after the explosion. What actually happened after the explosion and before the gaping hole appeared, is anybody's guess. - Ace BakerThe goon club is so-obviously guilty that one wonders how its adherents can still be walking free at this time. Anyone who thinks that the videos were authentic needs to ask why cameras stopped imaging during the explosion cloud. Didn't the camera owners want to capture what was behind the cloud? Is it really a good time to stop the camera just as the explosion is under way? Or is that something the goons needed? Of course. You can watch below what he's talking about above. If you've ever worked with construction materials, and you have just a little bit of sense beyond a 9 year old, you will find this laughable:
http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Magically_Healing_ColumnsOk, so what we see is a plane laughably going through the wall without spitting out any aluminum, nor any cladding off the wall, not even a glass window. Can you imagine the pounding on the columns if this crash truly took place? The wings stay perfectly straight until both are inside, and still the hole in the building that we see in this image has not yet appeared...though the wings are fully inside! It's like one joke after the other while you're still laughing at the first. The nose cone enters without any deformation, though we'd expect the fuselage to form something like a crumpled accordion by the time the wings reach the building. After the right wing is 90-percent fully in, most of the wall that should be showing wing-line damage looks to be in its perfect condition...and so why do you think CNN would allow itself to be complicit with this obvious fake job?
I sure am happy about it. In a sense, this is a dream come true for all Christians whom have known that CNN is part of the end-time enemy to be defeated. It's a much needed revelation to know of their support for mass-murderers. It explains what prophecy seems to be warning us of: from the top-down persecution.
We definitely need to ask why CNN chose not to show the entire plane entering in this particular video. What did this enemy hide between the entry of the wings and the appearance of the smoke in the last frame? I'll assume that this smoke is not part of the explosion because the goon club's Steve Wright claims that the explosion from the inside formed the plane-like shape in the building (yet another joke)...yes, AFTER the plane entered wholly as we are witnessing it here, the plane-like shape was formed by something other than the plane.
As we can see a small part of the hole at the left wing tip, the smoke we see must be the passive after-explosion smoke. That small bit of hole is virtually identical with the same in the full-view images of the south-tower hole.
Goon-club supporters clearly see that the plane does not form the hole upon entry, and so they have no recourse but to argue that the fuel explosion (unpredictable results) from the inside caused the plane-shape hole, miracle of miracles. It was such a miracle that the explosion not only formed a plane-like shape, but did so exactly where it was supposed to. The insiders wish for those highly-knowledgeable in the area of structural engineering to believe that the plane formed merely a thin slice while the subsequent explosion caused the bigger hole as we see it in other images. As Ace argues, which doesn't require an especially bright mind: a fuel explosion would be incapable of ripping through the steel of the columns so as to enlarge the hole.
If the plane was faked, so perhaps the smoke to hide the shape of the hole until they decided what shape they would go with for public viewing. Certainly, not airing the scene after wing entry could have the same reason: to hide the shape of the hole, and HOW IT WAS FORMED.
I'm not ruling out the possibility of a missile. However, a missile(s) cannot form the wing lines as we see them. There may have been a combination: 1) workers in the building to cut the wings lines, plant explosives; 2) some form a central explosion for the massive part of the hole. But an in-coming missile, while people have heads up looking at the north tower, is not a scenario I will adopt. Explosives placed inside could accomplish what an incoming missile could do, and so why risk a missile sighting? However, an incoming missile sends much debris inward while an explosion inside the walls sends the debris outward. Either way, it's a horrific murder scene on behalf of globalist plots.
If the entire video were faked (i.e. no live parts at all), there would have been no need to splice out the video after wing entry. They would have had much time to fake the formation of the hole too. Ace is probably correct, therefore, that this is a composite (more than one video at a time superimposed), a real/live shot of the building as the hole was about to form, but with a fake plane and perhaps some fake smoke inserted. Ace became renown for making his own composite of a plane entering a building just to prove that it can be done.
Be reminded that there were no live shots of plane entry (but only two plane approaches), giving time to fix the entry videos, and time also to tweak the hole shapes and other hole details. The fact that they had so little time to superimpose a faked plane entry to the real scene may explain why they went with such a cheap "cartoon," without plane deformation or flying debris. But, also, they couldn't go with a realistic crash scene due to a difficulty in planting plane pieces and cargo. They could much-more easily plant such things on roofs, but not on the street level in front of the towers. That can explain why they didn't have wing parts breaking off, nor luggage falling out, etc. They were in love with their globalist agenda so much that they risked this cartoon to secure it. Make no mistake about it; they failed.
The thing that amazes me most is the apparent sloppiness of the Fairbanks video not to line up the two puff clouds at the engines. In the past, I sometimes began to think at the goons did these "sloppy" things purposely as means to divide the population while they, the goons, are busy raping the land further. The errors are so many. But Ace comes up, as a by-product of his particular views, with a logical explanation for these glaring errors: superimposing planes on live shots doesn't give time to do a "proper" fake job.
The puffs look to me to be real events. The workers inside set up two explosions intended to be the engine entry points, afterwhich the larger explosion took place to rip out the entire hole.
I know little of Mr. Baker. I understand he's had business ties with Hollywood. He makes a very risky and bold statement when claiming that the truther, Jim Fetzer, is working for the other side, and that "Fetzer also promotes the hologram theory, which is physically impossible, and he knows it." I agree, but I hold some reservation in that a hologram-type light effect could conceivable form the so-called "orb" that came flying in as the supposed airplane (to the south tower). I'm not keen on the idea, but it's possible, I think.
In any case, the idea or paranoia that some truthers have is that fakers from the other side will come into the no-planes circles with distractive ideas to keep truthers from knowing how the hole was made. But Ace shockingly seems to paint them all with the same brush, perhaps an attitude problem, perhaps more to it:
I Give Up Trying to Use Scientific Facts and Reasoning on You People. Any sincere 9/11 researcher will eventually be driven to abject frustration. Why?Because most of the so-called leaders of the 9/11 "truth" movement are not the least bit interested in truth. Steve Jones, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, Jim Fetzer, Bob Bowman, David Ray Griffin, Webster Tarpley, Rob Balsamo, Dylan Avery, Jim Hoffman, John Lear, Killtown, Webfairy, Nico Haupt . . . every one has staked out a peculiar position, surrounding the truth, protecting the truth, diverting all comers away from the truth with spin, double think, half-truth, bizarre fiction, and a mountain of irrelevancy.
This, of course, is essentially the same conclusion reached by Gerard Holmgren over a year ago. Fetzer and others have commented on Holmgren's foul mouth. But I knew Gerard before he went ballistic. Holmgren was intelligent and brave, and laid the correct intellectual groundwork for no planes. He was articulate and polite. Gerard Holmgren was driven over the edge, and down into obscenity by continually confronting the political spin machine that calls itself the "truth movement".
This is truly sad. I've got to sympathize with Ace because I agree with his basic picture as far as I've seen and shown it here in this update. It seems irrefutable, as he claims:
This [work of mine] should have brought cheers from the entire 9/11 "truth" movement, at least from the so-called "no planers", but no. Instead, Killtown banned me from posting at his "911movement" forum, a hangout for no planers.Why?
Why would Killtown ban me, the one person who actually went and made the scientific case for no planes?
...Worse, a vicious smear campaign was launched...claiming I was a Mossad agent, that I had stolen another person's identity, that I was not really a musician, that I claimed to be a directed energy weapons expert, etc.
...
If you read the rest of this piece, you'll see the soap opera claimed by Ace. It's enough to make the goon club stand up and applaud. Who would want a part of this now? There is a point where he boasts of his accomplishments, which I can tolerate, and where he says of the two puff clouds: "I was the first to correctly explain the explosive flashes on the sides of the towers. They were real, and were absolutely needed in order to know where in time to place the airplane overlays."
While I'm not very happy with Ace's attitude, I happen to agree with him that holograms proper in thin air are impossible, and I may be open to the accusation that any high-level truther carrying that idea may be a fake truther. But there is a reason that these people take such a position, aside from being fakers trying to send other truthers off course. They find that the testimony of people who saw the planes too hard to explain away. I don't have that problem, but they do. I'll leave it at that.
One thing that Ace has not commented upon in the things I have read thus far, is his explanation for how the hole was made. He says that it was done by explosives, and perhaps he thinks that this is explanation enough. But lately, I got down to the knitty gritty and looked at the cuts and bends in the columns, figuring that they were cut with welder's torches. I'd like to hear from others that this was the true method, otherwise the hole seems problematic. The bent columns (not all are bent) do not bend outward as one might expect if they were cut through with explosives.
I cannot speak to his accusations because I did not know the people he accuses, while he spent time with them. One thing Ace seems to be is a straight-shooter. If he's only acting, he's a good actor. If he's exaggerating his accusations, then he's like a hurt man hurting others. One could argue that the truther movement needs better than this. Apparently, the no-planers do not wish to be known as "truthers" any longer. But if they don't watch it, they'll become known as the finger pointers. If you disagree with the other, state why so, and leave it at that.
It's not fame that destroys; it's the pursuit of fame. Achieving fame after all the hard work is opening a treasure box filled with fool's gold. You are not really loved after all; you realize that all the work was in vain. Seeking to be loved by loving others is the way of Christ, and it's true gold, not vain. Ace is to be credited for clean language in his posts. You can enjoy some intelligent discussions for a change, though, as usual, there are the others who inject their crass terms.
I do not think that the nose-out and fake-plane entry is a great discovery by anyone. It just happens to be a valued set of goofs that greatly assists in the difficult cause against the slippery goons. Proving no planes is of no-small importance for simultaneously proving a planned take-down of the buildings, but truthers are not in dispute about the latter happening. The internal debate should therefore be had on whether planes hit or not. Ace knew before studying the nose-out and fake-plane entry that they were fakes, but his contributions in that regard are of great value only because the blunders are of great value. Ace knows their value, and yet his fellow no-planes friends did not pay him attention, according to his lamentation at the webpage above. If his no-planes critics were truly indifferent or unconcerned, then I would view that as a red flag too. But if they were more-or-less pained by Ace over-stressing his own work, where they already knew the facts by eye-sight alone behind the fake-plane entry and the nose-out, then that's another picture, one that Ace did not portray in what I've just read (above).
I believe that it's the people at Simon Shack's circle who are accusing Ace of being an Israeli spy and a Hollywood agent, etc., but this may be due to a tit-for-tat. Ace definitely comes down too hard on Shack's ideas, unless Shack is indeed a fake himself, and the same can be said in reverse. I am not prepared to view any truther as a faker just because I don't agree with their views. However, it's not beyond possibility. Ace's motivation seems to be anti-government, and in this case, he has found his great cause against it. I'm not anti-government, but am anti-beast. You can see here that certain libertarians will work the cause of Christians against the beast.
Here is an interesting dispute that Ace holds which I find interesting: he tells of the live video of a 9-11 scene having no plane discovered by the founder of Loose Change (Avery surname). Yet, this man wants nothing to do with Ace's no-planes theory. Nor will Loose Change tolerate no-planers. I know nothing on the evolution of Loose Change's views. Ace claims to have requested a good copy of the video without the plane (I believe he's talking about the one that later had the plane that looked like an orb / blob), but Loose Change denied his request. I can understand a little frustration there on Ace's part, but I can also understand how that frustration turns to suspicion.
Below is Ace's short story on a plane not being in the picture of a "wide shot." I feel he has another excellent argument, that the plane should be visible throughout its approach, not showing up suddenly out of nowhere. Therefore, for anyone supposing that the criminally insane used a real plane in a fly-by (past the tower), I take it that this helicopter video rules it out:
http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/No_Plane_in_the_Wide_ShotNote the zoom power in the image above of a helicopter miles away from the towers. One can see the plane about to strike the building very clearly from that distance. Imagine the zoom power of this camera to look inside one of the tower holes from much closer. Why don't we have such shots??? At his "Miracle Zoom" link, Ace discusses this zoom:
After the 5 seconds of wide shot, with no plane in it, the camera then zooms part way in, zooms in some more, then finally zooms all the way in, framing a nice shot of the twin towers. Now at least it appears as though the chopper has arrived "at the scene", as anchor Jim Ryan said. Amazingly, one video frame after the final zoom, an airplane enters the screen. What are the odds of that happening by chance?Overlaying a moving airplane image on a stable, not-zooming video is feasible. Doing so on a zooming shot is quite tricky, and impossible to do in real time, if it is to be a convincing fake. Finishing all zooming is a practical necessity for any live compositing.
Conclusion
Thus, the miracle zoom is consistent with the compositing hypothesis, and would be a huge coincidence under the real plane hypothesis.
I have yet to find anyone on the idiot side responding to Ace in a civilized manner. That's how desperate the other side is. He's got money: "I challenge WNYW Television (Fox-5 New York) to release to me a broadcast-quality copy of the raw Chopper 5 airplane footage, plus a copy of the WNYW broadcast output for the morning of 9/11. If they do so, compliant with the parameters below, I will pay a reward of $100,000.00 in U.S. currency." Let's assume that Fox-5 doesn't want the money. Here we have an American who can be construed as a Fox customer, more than begging to see nothing more than a broadcast that was aired anyway to the Fox-5 viewership, and yet Fox-5 refuses to hand it over. That spells out the confidence that the no-planes movement has scored because the guilty parties are showing themselves guilty, time and time again, by essentially claiming the Fifth.
http://acebaker.blogspot.ca/2008/08/100000-wnyw-chopper-5-challenge.htmlHe also sent a message to all the people whom have claimed to be owners of video footage of the south-tower hit; it's not a publicity stunt so much as a risk he's taking to prove a point:
Did you or someone you know shoot amateur video of an airplane crash on 9/11? If so, it could net you a hundred grand.As readers of my work already know, I don't believe any airplanes crashed anywhere on 9/11. All of the airplane crash videos are video composites, says me. Prove me wrong, and make a quick $100,000 U.S.
The problem is none of the 9/11 airplane videos are available in their original quality. I highly suspect that this is due to the fact that reducing quality on a composite image is the best way to hide the messy fingerprints of the compositing process.
To sort it out, I offer this next in what has become a series of $100,000 challenges. To meet the challenge:
http://acebaker.blogspot.ca/2009/04/100000-amateur-video-challenge.html
Nobody has come forward to take $100,000. Let's assume that the owners (they don't truly own the videos) don't want to make money on the disaster. We can also assume that they don't want conspiracy nuts to have ammunition against the government, which is all the more reason to give up the videos to anyone who asks in order to show how authentic they really are.
Nobody has been able to get a good copy of the videos; there is a cover-up, obviously, but, in any case, there is more than enough evidence to prove that planes did not hit the towers. The Internet will make this known progressively as the years roll on, and so the fiends have stabbed themselves by providing the Internet for their schemes. The more they abuse the Internet to quell down opposition, the less they will be respected. Their game is becoming obvious to more people. The more they cheat in this game, the more they will bruise their cause. Every act of evil in seeking to cover this up causes God to make a decision on whether they will succeed or fail in that act. If we can force them to act wickedly, they will be found out all the more.
I've read all of Ace's material, and cannot find anything suggesting that he's a faking truther. Everything he says is logical and acceptable. I don't see how any of his material leads a person astray from the truth. He explains things in layman terms, showing respect for the man on the street. It was never over my head, except perhaps the stabilization part. Ace boasts that no one has ever proven his thinking wrong, and frankly, from what I've see, he's right. I don't know what he looks like on video, but you can watch him here on The Realist Report:
http://www.john-friend.net/2013/11/the-realist-report-with-john-friend_12.htmlThe Shackers must realize that there would be no way to warn every regular tower worker not to go to work that day. There was no way to wait until everyone in the building was taken down a stair well to safety on the street before collapsing the buildings at the touch of a button, for, had that been the reality, then one could not put their names on the list of the dead. The murders did happen, and the criminals needed to fabricate methods to protect themselves in case things went very badly.
If all of the videos were faked completely, and, if no one died or jumped from the buildings, as is the Shack claim, then perhaps no one can use the videos against the perpetrators in a court of law for the purpose of pegging them for murder. One of the bloggers in this page has this: "Regarding my Motion to Exclude Video Evidence:..." Perhaps this is what some truthers are, workers for the goon club seeking to expose the videos in order to keep all videos from trials if it should get to that. But, even so, the creators of the videos are liable for complicity in the murders, and they are connected directly to the ones who took down the buildings and caused the explosions in the walls. There is no way out, ultimately, no way for the courts to completely ignore the videos, unless of course they are corrupt courts.
Courts generally allow video evidence. In order to challenge the admission of video evidence under current rules, it would be necessary to examine the video for "evidence of tampering". In that case, you could have that video excluded.The writer has a good point...which can perhaps explain the obvious blunders in some of the videos, as though deliberately placed there to protect the goons should they ever get to court. But there is a problem with that theory: the blunders draw attention to a faked event and more-or-less assure the guilt of the conspirators. I cannot conceive of any jurist ignoring the videos even though the judge demands they stay out on a legal technicality. If the goons are thinking to hide behind that sort of screen, it's about as thick as the fingernails that they are biting to the bone.
It doesn't make sense to me that a judge has any requirement to reject a tampered video if it's obvious that the conspirators are responsible for tampering with the video. In any case, one could start a law suit, not for murder or ruining a building without due warning to workers, but for supplying tampered videos to the public / news people for the purpose of deception. Once the guilt of the video providers is established by convictions in a legal case, that fact can be used in another court case, with a different charge, against their partners in crime.
How does one go about securing a conviction against the conspirators if the videos are not permitted as evidence? They secured for themselves witnesses to planes flying in. The lawyers will need to hash that out. It can work the other way too, that if the videos are inadmissible, so should the testimonies be disallowed based on the obvious tampering in the videos. It's all connectable. Faked videos gives basis for faked witnesses.
It's impossible to convict anyone of crashing planes into the towers if none crashed.
The videos go a long way in the court of public opinion. It's not a waste of time to educate the public on what went on, even though there is not one conviction. To render the perpetrators lame as a group(s) is not a waste of time. To reveal them by name is not a waste of time.
The Tesla Effect; or Should we Call It, the Bush Effect?Ace Baker touched upon the fall of the concrete floors, pointing out the "impossibility" of their turning to dust as the floors collapsed. I'm not so sure. He opposed Judy Wood when she argued that a special-energy technology from satellites took down the building. She wasn't able to define the directed energy that she appeals to, and I suppose that's a valid argument where the directed energy is a top secret. She argues that vibrations / excitement in the atomic structure of the metal turned it to "dust." Better yet, she envisions it turning to more of a gas. I would say that's impossible due to the sheer magnitude of metallic volumes. How does enough energy get stored or unleashed from a satellite, or 100 satellites? It's simply too fictional.
She may have been better off arguing some Tesla-vibration phenomenon that cracked the concrete to pieces, thus compromising its attachment to the steel framing. There would be no need to argue against some use of explosives, as if it had to be either / or. Why can't both methods be true?
Ace half-convinced me that the high dust levels should not have occurred under a normal collapse situation by explosives. That is, due to the building falling at near-freefall velocity, there was little resistance from a stable floor as the ones above descended upon it. The higher the resistance of the floors during the collapse, the greater production of dust. With little resistance, the concrete floors are predicted to maintain integrity; cracking and checking, yes, but, by and large, it would remain in the form of concrete slabs. However, that could apply only until all floors hit the ground simultaneously as one cubic volume. Then what? Wouldn't that turn the concrete to dust? I would say yes.
Perhaps a four-inch thick piece of concrete falling from 100 floors up wouldn't turn completely to dust; perhaps mainly to pebbles. But with 110 concrete floors sandwiched / pancaked together, so that the kinetic energy is multiplied by that much, I see dust and lots of it when it hits the ground. I've never studied the debris field, which is a good reason for me not to go here right now. But one thing we know, there was not a cube of concrete 440 inches thick from 110 floors at 4 inches each.
In any case, the dust was indeed formed as the collapse occurred. It wasn't just a little dust, but far more than can be explained under the circumstances. Shack chooses to believe that the video was a fabrication, and so an explanation of the physics is in vain or without merit or purpose. But I think the vibrating Tesla effect could explain the dust from the concrete, though not, as Judy says, from the metal.
You should find the following interesting if correct. Of the three options, note the second option complete with planes. The theory is that the perpetrators started the truth movement initially to convince all skeptics that planes were definitely used. However, I was made interested and quickly converted to the truth movement by these types, and shortly afterward came to see that there were no planes at the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania. Nobody had to convince me of this, it was obvious in the photos alone. It was after that when I asked whether the same plane-less situation might be true of the two towers too. It is always at this point when one begins to contemplate the physics of a plane entering the buildings. Therefore, if the truth movement was set up to protect the goon club, it backfired. One can expect a backfire from an idiot. No one but goons would try 9-11. Make no mistake about it: George Bush is part with mass murderers, not a born-again Christian.
1. OGCT. This is known as the "Official Government Conspiracy Theory". This version states that a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspired with 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims...2. APCT. I call this the "Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory". This version states that, more or less, there were hijackings on 9/11, but the planes might have been taken under remote control to ensure they crashed as planned. Airplanes most likely crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville, but planes definitely did crash into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed from conventional explosives and thermite, and molten metal was found in the rubble. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the "wacko conspiracy theory" that the "truth movement" believes.
3. REAL. This, simply, is the REAL version, backed by actual evidence, Laws of Physics, and common sense: There were no hijackings, no plane crashes, the corporate media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane impacting the South Tower, and the WTC complex (not just the Towers and WTC 7) was destroyed with Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). The government and media steer clear of these.
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151&Itemid=60
What I found interesting in the above is that the media won't even touch the no-planes theory, one way or the other. If true, it says it all.
George Bush's father, the other president, was allegedly involved with a family in Nazi Germany seeking to steal the secrets of Nikola Tesla on behalf of Adolf Hitler's war. This story is online under George Herbert Scherf(f). The article below has some surprising ideas suggesting that Judy Wood is actually onto something even if she and her team do not understand the mechanics on their directed-energy concept. Tesla was the inventor of some directed-energy technology that he himself described as a potential weapon for military use. In other inventions, he thought that he could cause certain destructive vibrations on the molecular structures of materials. If the U.S. military has perfected the latter, to the point of making concrete brittle, I suppose it could be used in bringing down the Trade towers with all the dust that we witnessed:
2004, May 24 - Eugene Mallove / Steven Jones
Dr Mallove is murdered, allegedly by two people during a robbery.
...Things to consider: Eugene Mallove's work interfered with Steven Jones' deceptions....2006, March 18/19 - Michael Zebuhr / Steven Jones
Michael Zebuhr is murdered, allegedly by two people during a robbery.
On March 18 he was shot twice in the head and on March 19 he died.
Things to consider: Michael Zebuhr's work interfered with Steven Jones deceptions....2007, March 16 - Judy Wood / Jerry Leaphart [her lawyer]
Dr Wood files a Request for Correction (RFC) with the government regarding the 9/11 NIST Report... (NCSTAR1)....2007, April 16 - Judy Wood
Several of Dr Wood's instructors were killed at Virginia Polytechnic Institute.2007, April 20 - Judy Wood
Dr Wood files Supplement #2 to her Request for Correction to NIST [gutsy woman].2007, April 25 - Judy Wood / Jerry Leaphart
Dr Wood, with Mr Leaphart, file Qui Tam case under seal...
Dr Wood sues the private contractors hired by NIST alleging they conspired to hide evidence of directed energy weapons at the WTC. Included in the suit are ARA, SAIC, and Boeing, sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society.
This case is filed under seal and therefore not known to the public.
...Things to consider: An official government document prepared by NIST declining Dr Wood's Request for Correction, and no media outlet reports it! If the D[irected]E[nergy]W[eapon] theory had no merit, why didn't the government and media discredit the "truth movement" by publicizing this [implied answer: the media wanted not to give this story any resonance]?http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151&Itemid=60
The murders surrounding this case has convinced me to entertain something I was unwilling to entertain until then: that Judy could be onto the truth. However, I completely reject any notion that energy directed from a satellite, or 100 satellites, could vaporize the steel of the buildings. What I do entertain is the Tesla factor sought and possibly stolen by the family / circle of George Herbert Walker Bush. I'm going to quote a website that puts this accusation straight-forwardly in a nutshell; from there, I'll go into more detail after introducing Wikipedia's articles on Tesla:
Skorzeny alleges that George Herbert Walker Bush was/is an SS Nazi spy, as was he. "Allegedly", George H.W. Bush was born in Germany as George H. Scherff Jr., the son of Dr. Nikola Tesla's German born, illegal immigrant, accountant George H. Scherff Sr. George Sr. had been robbing Tesla blind for years & giving Tesla's secret inventions directly to Adolph Hitler. In 1938, Hitler sent 14 year old George H. Scherff Jr. to America to try to befriend, spy on, & kill the Great American Inventor, Dr. Nikola Tesla!Wikipedia has an article of the Tesla oscillator:
...Later in life Tesla claimed one version of the oscillator caused an earthquake in New York City in 1898, gaining it the popular culture title "Tesla's earthquake machine"....One version of the story has Tesla experimenting with a small version of his mechanical oscillator at his laboratory on 46 East Houston Street near the Manhattan neighborhood of SoHo. Tesla said the oscillator was around 7 inches (18 cm) long, and weighing one or two pounds; something "you could put in your overcoat pocket". At one point while experimenting with the oscillator, he alleged it generated a resonance in several buildings causing complaints to the police. As the speed grew he said that the machine oscillated at the resonance frequency of his own building and, belatedly realizing the danger, he was forced to use a sledge hammer to terminate the experiment, just as the police arrived.[5] Other versions have Tesla smashing the device before the police arrive and have multi-ton equipment in the basement moving around. Another version has Tesla clamping an oscillator to a building under construction and causing it to vibrate so violently the steelworkers working on it left the building in a panic
If Tesla believed he could bring buildings down that long ago...
It's one thing to use vibrations to cause weak atomic bonds in concrete sufficient to bring a concrete floor down, and quite another to cause all the steel in the towers to disassociate (completely "vaporize") at the molecular level, as Woods claims to be the truth.
The Tesla idea seems to be that the continuous addition of vibrational energy into materials will evolve the vibrations in the material until the latter reach a critical point not necessarily forceful but key to destroying the atomic bonds by chaos or just the right swing-motion, or imagine it how you will. The article goes on: "At the 1935 party Tesla also claimed the mechanical oscillator could destroy the Empire State Building with 'Five pounds of air pressure' if attached on a girder and that he expected to earn $100 million from the oscillator within two years."
One cannot necessarily reproduce his vibrator today because he may have been withholding some secrets concerning the nature of vibrations needed to make it work. "Tesla claimed that efforts had been made to steal the invention. His room had been entered and his papers had been scrutinized, but the thieves, or spies, left empty-handed. He said that there was no danger that his invention could be stolen, for he had at no time committed any part of it to paper. The blueprint for the teleforce weapon was all in his mind" [doubtful? exaggerated?]
Let's get back to the juicy Bush story:
...The reality of Tesla's murder was brought home to us after listening to this Youtube presentation. Eric Bermen tells Greg Syzmanski how he discovered his former girlfriend was the daughter of ex-Nazi SS Commando Otto Skorzeny, and thereby quite by chance met the elderly Skorzeny who had been living for years in the US, working as a carpenter with a new identity supplied by the CIA after WWII.Bermen (who sometimes uses the pseudonym Eric Orion) heard a full confession from Skorzeny, who was nearing the end of his life, and was given a shoebox full of over a hundred photographs to substantiate his claims. Among a number of other highly significant revelations, Bermen heard from Skorzeny that he had personally suffocated Nikola Tesla on January 6, 1943, assisted by fellow-Nazi Reinhard Gehlen. Tesla was then 86 years old.
According to Skorzeny, he and Gehlen had tricked Tesla the previous day into revealing the full details of his most important discoveries. After the murder, they stole the contents of Tesla's safe, which were delivered to Hitler. (Note, of course, that the US military would have fully repatriated this treasure trove of innovation through Project Paperclip at the end of the war.)
Otto Skorzeny was Hitler's bodyguard & also an assassin, one of the many Nazis who ex-filtrated to the USA after WWII, as part of Project Paperclip. Many of these Nazi scientists ended up working for NASA, the CIA, and other US secret services.
Although he supposedly died in 1975 in Spain, Skorzeny resurfaced in 1999. Otto Skorzeny described how ("contrary to the CIA-written history books") he helped Hitler escape to Austria in a plane flown by a female pilot, Hanna Reitsch.
...After working for Edison Telephone Company subsidiaries in Budapest, Paris, and other cities throughout Europe, Nikola Tesla went to America, to meet the man whose company gave him his first job, Thomas Edison.
Tesla found it difficult to work for Edison (due to Edison's reneging on financial promises), but soon found backers to finance his research and development projects and his new inventions.
...In fact, many of his inventions were developed through secret government programs which began soon after his discoveries in alternating current (AC), electromagnetic energy, electric motors, generators, coils, radio transmission, energy-saving devices, and wireless transmission technologies.
Since Tesla was often buried deep in research at remote labs, many of his financial and legal affairs were supervised by his closest associate, George H. Scherff.
Scherff often advised Tesla about pending patent litigation, contracts, proposals, demonstrations, and financial affairs.
...Though Union Sulphur Company was run by its president, Herman Frasch...[who] also worked for John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company (in New York, New Jersey, and Cleveland, Ohio), developing similar extraction methods.
Frank Rockefeller was also an investor of Buckeye Steel Castings in Columbus, Ohio. Buckeye manufactured automatic couplers and chassis for railroad cars owned by the Harrimans, the Rockefellers, and J.P. Morgan. Eventually, Samuel P. Bush was promoted from general manager to president of the company after producing gigantic profits.
Samuel P. Bush's association with the Rockefellers and his subsequent position as Director of the War Industries Board afforded him the opportunity to create contracts with Remington Arms during the war, courtesy of Percy Rockefeller. Nikola Tesla's trusted assistant (sometimes referred to as "accountant" or "secretary") George Scherff, Sr., worked at Union Sulphur Company [hence, potential / expected connection to the Bush family].
Normally, this association would not set off alarms, considering the state of Tesla's affairs. Scherff had every right to earn a decent living in order to support his family...But a careful examination of Union Sulphur Co. might reveal that someone was being deceived -- Tesla, and Scherff was at the root of this deception.
Who was George Scherff? Who was George Scherff? Better yet, who was George H. Scherff, Sr.? There exists no legitimate record of a George H. Scherff being born in the U.S. from the late-1800s through 1925, yet, George Scherff was Nikola Tesla's assistant/accountant.
...In short, Otto Skorzeny claimed that the true identity of George H.W. Bush was "George H. Scherff, Jr., the son of Nikola Tesla's illegal-immigrant, German-born accountant, George H. Scherff, Sr."
Worth a thousand words: But this was not the only bombshell Otto Skorzeny delivered that day in late-1999...
...Eric "Orion" (Berman), in a live radio interview on Republic Broadcasting Network, January 17, 2006, detailed how:
"Skorzeny died on December 31, 1999. His body was cremated, I have a copy of his death certificate, and I saw his ashes. After the war, he helped George Bush found the CIA through Operation Paperclip and ODESSA."Berman recounted how Skorzeny was found "not guilty" at the Nuremburg trials, and then ushered into the CIA. "Some 50,000+ S.S. Nazi war criminals, not just rocket scientists, were brought to America after the war."
...The article continued, "Following Tesla's death the United States Office of Alien Property, under the instructions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, confiscated all of Tesla's papers and property. This was an interesting maneuver considering that Tesla was a United States citizen."
...Prior to the murder, Skorzeny and Gehlen "spoke in great detail to Tesla about his most-advanced technologies and then stole the blueprints of his best, most-secret inventions" [where's the evidence for this, or the line of reasoning to conclude it? I'm not denying it necessarily, but would like to see some evidence from time to time].
...Having investigated some of Skorzeny's claims, Berman had contacted the U.S. Justice Department to inform them that Nazi spies were being harbored by certain factions of the U.S. intelligence agencies, in particular, the CIA...
This suffices to create the backdrop to the modern era in the United States, with a Nazi backdrop to the CIA that has, apparently, overcome the United States. How ironic is this? Imagine: the forces advancing Nazism became underpinnings of the CIA, in league with the American government. There has got to be more to this than an alliance between Nazi's and Americans after the war. What about before the war? How could Nazi's form the CIA unless there was something between Hitler and the U.S. government before / during WW2? The U.S. government has been as sick as a rabid dog for at least that long. It has been on a mission to explore and develop high-tech weaponry for global conquest for at least that long. The backs of the American workers have been the money tools to get that job done, and, always, there needs to be a faked enemy to "justify" the enormous military expenditures. After the Soviets were weakened, the Arab terrorists became the justification. I get it.
If you're thinking that the central circle in the 9-11 movement is at the CIA, you're probably correct. But I think that the very highest in the circle are too important to be employed as mere spies. Such losers. If these guys are looking for fights, they are about to bump into One Jesus Christ. Their fight is not with the people, but with God. When He wants to be invisible, there is no CIA dope that can find him nor see what he's up to. He doesn't make mistakes. In the meantime, what could be worse than being ruled by such a system as this?
If you're interested in more Scherff details, and then there an ebook, Vail of Invisibility. I haven't been able to load it, perhaps you can. It's written by Alexander Putney, a Putin-like surname (may or may not be coincidental).
The article below has some column dimensions (and by the way, the nature of wing spars in a passenger jet can be seen here:
http://physics911.net/missingwings/):
http://www.911hoax.com/morgan_reynolds_911_hoax.htmlIn the photo of the real scene, see the small ledges on the floor flanges (Morgan Reynolds calls these flanges "spandrel plates" in the above article). I don't know what the ledges are called officially, but they are the apparent entirety of what holds up the concrete floors. They are basically tongues of steel issuing out from inside the flanges. There is no need to make them long because 90 percent of the floor weight is supported by the first 1/4-inch closest to the flange. If, during the 9-11 collapse, those ledges fail, the whole of upper concrete floors would simply fall, IF the columns are cut as well on the same floor in which the ledges fail.
It's not at all easy to cause the entirety of the upper floors to fall as one whole. It's not possible by jet fuel. But if it should be caused, the force of the falling floors do not need to compromise the ledges at all, but rather need only to buckle the long, steel joists sitting upon the ledges. I haven't seen the joists, but I imagine they're not very strong as far as resistance to buckling [the next update finds them to be 35 inches wide/deep]. With, for example, a safety factor of two times built in, they might support as much as the weight of three floors, but not more than three falling floors, we might presume. That's one way of looking at it.
But then we read this: "This flies in the face of engineering practice, which is to build structures at least four times as strong as they would have to be to sustain maximum anticipated loads" In other words, the floors didn't collapse due to jet-fuel fire, and not be anything other than a planned attack upon the columns and/or joists.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/bazant_jem/bazant_zhou.htmlVery apparently, the concrete floors would collapse easily, offering little resistance. But if this is the case, the concrete should not have produced so much dust during the collapse. Concrete floor should have smacked concrete floor, with no dust at all, essentially. There is the exterior cladding, however, though thus far I don't know what it was made of. I've assumed it was of concrete. Do you think the cladding could produce this much dust:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22collapse+photos%22+9-11&qs=n&form=QBRE&filt=all&pq=%22collapse+photos%22+9-11&sc=8-1&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=a52551b6752e400e8c147baeb22f8b16Below is one of many "new" photos of the collapse as seen from the air in police helicopters:
ABC said the NIST gave the network 2779 pictures on nine CDs, saying some of the photographs had never been released before.The network posted 12 photos this week [2010] on its website, all taken by ex-NYPD Aviation Unit Detective Greg Semendinger, who was first in the air in a search for survivors on the rooftop.
He said he and his pilot watched the second plane hit the south tower from the helicopter.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/3314750/New-photos-show-9-11-tower-collapse
Now that it's certain that no planes hit, we easily identify Greg Semendinger as an insider, an enemy of the country, which is why he was allowed up to see this event from the air. It may be impossible to know whether this is an authentic photo, or whether it's simply a creation, but it definitely underscores massive dust production. It doesn't appear that there is any attempt here to minimize the dust levels.
Many images of the incoming plane, supposedly from citizens, may have been composited over real video taken from the police helicopter(s). As far as I know, no citizen ever captured this helicopter in their video, but I am no expert on the sorts of 9-11 images that came out. I'm reading that Semendinger took photos from his personal camera too. You can read this from James Fetzer below:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.ca/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.htmlI'm not familiar with the collapse debates amongst truthers, and so I think I'll start looking into that today, starting with Fetzer's ideas. I'd like to be able to solve the dust problem with a decent theory, and want to find why some are saying that even the steel turned to "dust."
The Dust and Steel MysteryThe new mystery for me is the absence of concrete at the ground of the two Trade towers: 110 floors of four-inch concrete accumulates to the equivalent of a heap 440 inches, about three storeys of concrete even if it ended up perfectly flat, pancake style. Where did it all go? In the photos of the aftermath, we see steel, not concrete.
Jim Fetzer argues for a special method(s) for taking the buildings down beyond typical demolition methods, and while he does not know what that method(s) may be, he claims that the bulk of the concrete AND METAL turned to dust. For this very difficult concept of metal becoming "dustified," there are two options: 1) small dust particles massive in comparison to iron atoms; 2) disassociation on the molecular level, meaning that the steel became individual iron atoms not essentially different than in a gas. Are either of these theories to be taken seriously?
Iron becomes a gas at 2,750 C, wherefore the Judy Woods and Jim Fetzers of the truther movement do not consider the possibility of iron disassociation due to melting of the tower's steel parts. They imagine a different means to cause disassociation, or to cause, as Judy calls it, "dustification." To unbond (same as disassociate) the atoms of a material apart from bringing it to its evaporation point is done otherwise, so far as we know, only by chemical reactions. But a chemical reaction always requires product, and results in different product, wherefore it's seemingly impossible to conceive of a chemical reaction attacking most of the steel in the towers. Forget it.
If the massive levels of dust in the 9-11 images can't be explained, and if it's true what Mr. Fetzer says, that most of the metal is missing in the debris field, then perhaps Simon Shack is correct when he says that the collapse images were fabricated from scratch. If correct, no one studying the images can know how the towers were brought down, nor what the debris field looked like (assuming he/she was not an eye witness). However, I fall upon another explanation for the missing steel late in this section.
Below are some dust photos, very hard to come to any conclusions aside from: the clouds look like they are alive, moving with internal energy, unaffected by the air due to being stronger than the air, heavier than mere wisps of smoke:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/dust.html#southOn the page below, there are two distinct dust clouds at one building (the south tower), of different colors, one being dark grey. How could it possibly be that these colors had not mixed on the way down? How could they have formed independent clouds at the street level? There is no grey dust in the white cloud, and no white dust in the grey cloud. What could cause dark-grey dust??? Most other photos do not show anything of the sort, though some seem to show grey and white mixing, inexplicable because concrete dust can only be one color: whitish.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2biggartdust1.htmlHere's the rub:
Apparently the dust contained a significant proportion of the towers' constituents, such as their concrete, glass, and gypsum. Photographs of Ground Zero show piles of shattered steel and aluminum cladding, but show virtually no signs of the tens of thousands of tons of concrete that constituted the 4-inch-thick floor slabs of each of the towers' 110 floors. This observation, combined with the documented extent of the dust, suggests that the vast majority of that concrete was pulverized into fine dust.(Apparently, the "aluminum cladding" could be what I've been thinking to be the concrete cladding surrounding all columns. If it's aluminum, then the gaps between columns should look a lot larger than they do in most of the images of the buildings. There is no way that the gaps could be less wide than the columns if the cladding is mere aluminum (i.e. very thin requirement as compared to concrete requirement).
The quote is from 911 Research, not apparently a mere opinion. The forceful assumption is that the concrete was pounded to progressively finer material with each pounding event, floor after floor. While credible, what about the top floors that did not take the heaviest beatings? Shouldn't some concrete have survived (apart from dust) in the upper areas? What about the concrete in the middle of the 208-foot square? How did that get out into the air? Shouldn't the central particles have fallen as a single heap straight down to the ground?
Some of it, perhaps most, yes. While the cement in the concrete is light and given to drift, the stone material in the concrete is predicted to become sand-like in the main, too heavy to be airborne. It should drop, incapable of forming clouds. There is much more sand and stone in a mix of concrete than there is cement. Where are the sand and stone materials at "ground zero"??? Where is the heap?
I realize that sand can be made ever finer to the point of becoming airborne in the smallest of breezes, but this idea is not sitting well with me for the 9-11 disaster. There was an enormous amount of metal between floors that would have prevented one floor from kissing another floor square enough to pound stones to fine dust. There was a joist across the entire floor span, beginning at every column, meaning that the joists were one meter apart. In order to grind the concrete to dust, the floors would first need to crush the joists to a thickness less than the thickness of a piece of dust. Impossible.
The metal would have kept the concrete apart at some distance in most locations across any given floor. Besides, as the pounding was not severe in the sense that each floor was dislocated from columns with ease, it argues all the better for the survival of stones and large sand granules to the very last part of the journey at the ground.
Do you find the following suspicious:
The study was based entirely on dust samples collected from just three locations:
A building on Cortlandt Street, one block east of the WTC.
An automobile on Cherry Street, about 0.7 km east of the WTC.
An automobile on Market Street, about 0.7 km east of the WTC.Did the drivers of the cars sneak their own dust samples to the site, to be somehow transferred to the lab's dust collector?
"Unfortunately, despite the detail of the study...The report does not quantify what proportion of the dust was pulverized concrete, though it does note that the samples were very alkaline [cement is alkaline]. It notes that significant portions of the dust were glass fibers and cellulose fibers, and that the samples were fluffy. Thus, it appears that the samples were not representative of the dust that settled in open areas in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Being from sheltered areas, their samples were likely biased greatly in favor of lightweight fibrous debris, which would tend to stay aloft much longer than powdered concrete." Or, like most-everything else, even this dust sample was faked.
"Interestingly, it states that X-ray analyses showed large signals for iron, but fails to quantify the proportion of iron, omitting it from the table giving concentrations of elements." How suspicious to eliminate such a thing. Time after time, a cover up. Not releasing the cement-to-steel ratio is to be expected, lest it become fodder for another controversy. If they were faking this test, they would have been guessing as to that ratio, and in the end the guess may have turned out to be a bad one.
Finally, the scientists did not broach the issue of whether the dust showed evidence of explosive residues. Their report does not appear to have sufficient detail to use it as a basis for drawing any conclusions about the question of explosives. All their disclosures of the dust composition are partial, addressing questions about the levels of heavy metals and toxic hydrocarbons, but failing to provide even complete compositional analysis of elements.Another test, this time conducted by the US Geological Survey, reported on six elements within the dust (in a chart at the page above) as follows: Silicon 17% by weight; Calcium 17%; 2.5% magnesium; sulfur 4%; iron 2%; aluminum 3%. The numbers are mine as the approximate averages of those in the chart, but why do the six numbers add up to less than 50%? What other elements were there, not in the chart? I suppose it would be the oxygen in the cement, and the oxygen in the sand; the latter (and glass) is made of silica, consisting of two times the oxygen versus silicon.
The article says that concrete consists of 70 to 80 percent sand and stone. The specific weight of concrete is 2.4, meaning that one cubic centimeter of concrete weighs 2.4 grams (I don't know how much the light-weight concrete in the towers weighed). Each floor had roughly (208 x 208 x .33 =) 14,280 cubic feet = 416,000,000 cubic centimeters, x 2.4 = 998,400,000 grams = 2,200,000 pounds of concrete per floor, or 242 million pounds per tower = 121,000 tons (assuming 2,000-pound tons).
Steel weighs about 7.8 grams per cubic centimeter. Where the columns were 14" x 14" (1.167 feet square), at 2" (.167 feet) thick on average (guessing), while the 110 floors combined were about 1,365 feet tall, and, as per the 244 outer columns all around, the weight of steel for outer columns alone (not including spandrels): 1.167 x 4(sides) x .167 x 1365 x 244 = 260,000 cubic feet = 7.57 billion cubic centimeters, x 7.8 = 59 billion grams = 130,000,000 pounds = 65,000 tons.
However, the 2-inch figure was used when the math of this section had included the core columns. I've dropped that part in this update because the next update shows photos of the 48 core columns with what looks like six or more times as much steel, per column and their related beams, than the outer columns, suggesting that the core weighed at least as much as the outer columns combined. The outer columns were likely less than two-inches thick on average. Assuming 65,000 for outer columns and spandrels combined, let's look at it, for we can read online that each tower weighed 500,000 tons (very debatable figure). If the outer columns and concrete amount to some 185,000 tons, we're apparently still missing some 315,000 tons. [I I'll be re-visiting this in the first update of May with a paper that deals with the various tower weights.]
As the glass and cladding amounts to virtually nothing by comparison, that remainder would need to be in steel joists/trusses and other steel parts under and within the concrete. However, as 315,000 tons in steel seems too high by a considerable amount, the 500,000 figure is probably in error (unless it includes a heavy concrete foundation). Here's a statement: "The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t...Interestingly, the approximately 300,000 t of steel..." No one comes close to 300,000 tons of steel.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.htmlTHEREFORE, as there was more steel than concrete floors, how is it that the dust had only about two percent by weight of iron? Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood would be hard-pressed to argue, from these figures, that most of the steel turned to dust. Or, if the dust was fixed / faked, and if the chart reflects what the goons wanted us to believe, then they didn't want anyone to think that most of the metal turned to dust. The onus is on Fetzer to prove that the metal turned to dust, no small task because it's illogical in the first place aside from the dust sampling results.
The article below says 200,000 tons of steel, and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, though these figures seem to be from both towers combined because it also says 500,000 tons per tower (questionable number at this point). The concrete figure is much more than my calculations. As a yard of concrete weighs 4050 pounds, let's call it two tons, meaning about 850,000 tons of concrete for both towers, or 425,000 tons per tower. Something doesn't add up.
Do your own math by multiplying 208 feet by 208 feet by 4 inches (= .33 feet), for a total of 14,277 cubic feet. As concrete (normal) weighs 150 pounds per cubic foot, that's 2,141,600 pounds (approx) per floor. For 110 floors, it's 117,800 tons, a far cry from 425,000 tons. Perhaps their figure included concrete for the foundation...which doesn't apply to the dust.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.htmlHere's how one can figure about 60 percent concrete material in the dust sample. First, the concrete's cement is portland, otherwise called alite = 3CaO·SiO2. That is, the cement is three parts calcium, one part oxygen, and about 25 percent silica (SiO2) too according to Wikipedia. Although the dust-sample chart reveals about as much calcium as silicon (about 17 percent each), the total silicon content needs to be split partially for the portland and partially for the sand and stone in the concrete. The 25-percent figure above suggests that about 7 percent of the silicon goes toward the portland, leaving the 10 percent remainder for the rest of the concrete. The silica in the portland is very fine, not gritty like sand at all, and may be carried easily in the wind.
Where the oxygen in the 3CaO represents a constituent equal to one-third the 17-percent figure of calcium (let's call it 6), then: about (17 + 7 + 6 =) 30 percent of the dust sample consisted of portland material. That sounds about right because the concrete is expected to be about 25 percent portland.
Of the 10 percent of remaining silicon, some is for the sand in the concrete, and much less within the stones of the concrete. If we assume 8 percent for the sand and 2 for the stones, the total sand content of the dust sample amounts to about 24 percent (8 x 3)...because there's two-thirds oxygen mixed with silicon to make sand. The maximum percentage of sand and stone combined, within the dust sample, looks to be about 30 percent...about equal to the portland cement in the dust. That's not good for anyone's claim that most of the concrete turned to dust. Instead of the reality -- three times the sand and stone material versus portland -- there was roughly equal amounts to portland.
It means that two-thirds of all the concrete's sand and stone material should have landed in the ground-zero field. Where did it go? Are we being lied to?
There is a problem that I can't see a solution for. If 60 percent by weight of the dust was for concrete, while 5 percent was iron and aluminum combined, what was the remaining 35 percent? It can't be for the gypsum wall board, for that's comparatively light. The weight of glass versus concrete is so slight that it can be disregarded. Something is not adding up. I hope it's not my reasoning and math. Are the samples unreliable? Did they leave out most of the concrete so that it wouldn't draw attention to most of the concrete turning to dust?
Since Ground Zero was closed to people taking pictures or otherwise examining the evidence, these photographs were apparently taken by rescue and recovery workers....The following sets of photographs were taken by an anonymous photographer who was threatened with arrest for photographing Ground Zero. A police officer seized the photographer's digital camera and deleted the images, but the photographer was later able to restore them using Photorescue.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/groundzero.html
It speaks for itself. People unable to take photos of mere rubbish reveals that the leaders are good for nothing but the scrap heap of Hell. What were they intending to hide? Their crime, of course. More precisely, they didn't want the photo's on non-insiders to clash with the fakes about to come out from the insiders. Compare the two images below to learn that a heap of rubble was moved unchanged from one spot to another...i.e. it was moved by computer mouse, not by construction equipment. Why?
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911SimonRubbish.jpghttp://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911SimonRubbish2.jpg
At this point, since I can't even trust the pictures of ground zero, I have not enough to go by as per making a decision on how much concrete turned to dust. I don't expect the sand and stone to turn fully to dust. There was too much of it to fit between the pieces of steel, and, besides, the pictures I see never show enough steel. I have a good concept of how much steel was in the buildings because I've just spent two weeks full-time measuring the columns in detail. The heap of scrap at ground zero should be much larger.
The dust clouds that issued from the Towers' explosive collapses were unlike anything seen in the history of man-made structures. Even conventional explosive demolitions of large buildings produced far less dust. Their appearance and rate of travel resembled the pyroclastic flows of volcanoes.This page lists photographs which show the dust clouds...Photographs listed on the collapses page also show a great deal of dust, whose production started within the first second of each collapse.
Mr. Fetzer makes the same point. Why would dust start immediately? Shouldn't there be some repeated concrete-to-concrete pounding first? Does concrete turn to much dust that easily, upon the first couple crashes? How else can it be explained? Have the Paperclip Nazi's figured a way to weaken concrete using vibrations? Even so, can we expect a concrete-to-dust situation by mere vibrations? Hard to believe.
Louie Cacchioli, was one of the first firefighters to enter the South Tower as it burned. A 20-year veteran of the fire department, Cacchioli told People Weekly:
I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.Eyewitness Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co., New York, recalled events in the South Tower:
When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go. There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.Was this a high-pitched noise intended to ruin certain key spots by vibration power alone? Can just-the-right, high-frequency sound weaken concrete? But then someone else heard a low-pitched noise:
Eyewitness Neil deGrasse Tyson recounted his recollection of explosions at the onset of the collapses in an e-mail he sent to his family on the day after the attack:
I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion.... As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first.
The same sound just before the start-of-collapse at both buildings. Hmm, why could we expect never to hear this from the official report? It's not at all contradictory for there to have been both low- and high-pitched noises. Different frequencies for different purposes. There may have been high-frequency noise too high for the human ear.
A striking feature of the Twin Towers' destruction was the pulverization of most of the concrete into gravel and dust before it hit the ground. This is evident from the explosive mushrooming of the towers into vast clouds of concrete as they fell, and from the fact that virtually no large pieces of concrete were found at Ground Zero, only twisted pieces of steel. Estimates put the size of the particles, which also included gypsum and hydrocarbons, in the ten- to 100-micron range...."In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html
Very strange, is it not? We can't blame this on jet fuel. We can't say the concrete was turned to dust that soon by merely the slowest part of the building's fall. He continues:
"The floors themselves are quite robust [at first anyway]. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below [excellent point]...Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.
Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete?..."
I don't have much choice but to believe that there was little resistance in debilitating a concrete floor at its supports. I've only now just learned that the joists were 35 inches wide. I can't imagine it would have taken much to buckle these trusses, if they are the type that I'm envisioning, causing them to quickly slip off the ledges at the flanges. Explosives in the first few floors seems logical to help the floors to fail, though none of this explains the vast and early dust. "The Truss Failure Theory [by jet-fuel temperature increase] was abandoned by NIST's investigation in 2004 because NIST was unable to get floor assemblies to fail as required by the theory. Documentaries that had promoted the truss failure theory became obsolete, and were quietly replaced with updated versions."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/trusses.htmlThe article above: "FEMA's building description leaves 32,000 tons of steel unaccounted for in each tower, given that the towers were known to each use 96,000 tons of steel." Even the 96,000 figure IS (no doubt about it) wildly incorrect. I wonder who supplied that figure, now that we see evidence of FEMA wanting as low a figure as possible. Why would that be? Did they ship away only 96,000 tons with official documents while shipping the rest unofficially to some secret place because it had been set aside (on site) as damning?
The article adds: "However, Guardian's calculations about the quantities of steel accounted for by FEMA's building description underline the failure of the official reports to provide a truthful and complete picture of the Towers' construction." I say that we should prepare the sheets for their beds in Hell. Love your enemy and heap burning coals on their heads as a result. Let's make sure they have a nice, fluffy pillow, shall we?
The article below provides a good argument for addition of an unexpected heat or water-vapor source within the dust cloud for explaining its fast travel and voluminous expansion.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/volume.htmlI'm stumped. Perhaps the best solution is the Shack solution: the debris field was faked. There was concrete there, but they didn't want us to know. They greatly exaggerated the dust cloud in images to explain the lack of concrete that they omitted from other faked debris-field photos. They had provided a faked no-concrete situation in order to have the excuse of not giving up concrete samples to investigators, for residue evidence of their explosive events within the buildings would be found upon the concrete all over the place.
Below, I read most of (but not all) a report to find more data on the dimensions of the steel. The report (2001) is the official-storyline collapse due to jet fuel. Although the writer, skilled in engineering, mentions all the steel supports that needed to be compromised, he fails to mention their sizes. How about that as evidence for a sheer cover-up. He knew full well not to mention the thicknesses of metal because it would go counter to his argument.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/bazant_jem/bazant_zhou.htmlSee a photo of the trusses (not sure if they are accurately represented) in the image below. Keep in mind that if all trusses were to disengage all at once from their columns, only the one concrete floor would fall, not what's above it. The columns would need to be severed in order to have the floors above fall. Once that happens, the trusses will fail with little doubt if there are as many as 15 floors dropping. The picture shows one truss per two outer columns, yet there was much more metal than the trusses alone:
The animation, which shows the beginning of the unzipping chain reaction, doesn't show the cross trusses, which ran perpendicular to the falling trusses.The animation implies that the floors simply rested on the trusses. In fact the tops of the trusses were bolted to the corrugated steel pans underlaying the concrete floor slabs.
We now come to the shockwave theory, where the writer enlightens us on concrete dust expelled from the building well below the crash zone. Imagine this: as the top of the tower falls, it strikes its first stable floor, sending a shockwave down the columns to floors far lower. The shock wave disconnects concrete floors, from columns, in advance of the crash zone arriving:
The gigantic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling structure landing on the floors below travelled down the columns like a shockwave faster than the entire structure fell. The clouds of debris coming from the tower, several storeys below the huge falling mass, probably result from the sudden and almost explosive failure of each floor, caused by the "shockwave".I'm not quoting this to investigate the theory, for it's impossible. I'm quoting it because it admits that concrete dust was expelled well below the crash zone. Something in the building was creating the dust before it's expected by a logical rendering of this disaster. What was the cause? That is the mystery.
The reason that the shockwave theory fails is that a powerful wave (sufficient to disconnect floors) could only occur where a stable floor resisted impact damage to a large degree. If the falling floors simply rammed right through the stable ones, there would be no sizable shock. The shock would come only where the velocity of the falling top were slowed considerably, and of course there was no slowing of the falling top. Therefore, while this theory may or may not have as a purpose to explain the near-freefall speed, it actually hinders it. Not a wonder that: "In later versions of the article, the passage has been changed to remove the shockwave theory, while other copies retain the shockwave theory."
The main purpose of the shockwave theory may have been to explain the dust formation below the progressing crash zones, where it's not expected. The article has a picture of collapse of the south tower, with dust seemingly well below the crash zone, and yet one cannot see the crash zone for the dust, and, of course, dust is expected to spread downward too. I'll take the word of the writer that dust formed below the crash zone.
Just look at the dust formation as the South tower falls; look at the astonishing impossibility of it being from the concrete. It's not something I've emphasized until now. I'm not saying that it wasn't from the concrete, but that the concrete is not expected to have turned to that monster:
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos911SouthDust.jpg
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos911SouthDust2.jpgHere's an interesting way to end this update, suggesting government involvement at Oklahoma:
...This [official 9-11 collapse method] is a phenomenon that's been dressed up and given the fancy term, "progressive collapse". But how interesting that this term, "progressive collapse", only shows up in the description of building collapses in two cases. One is the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York City, and the other, how interesting, is the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.BF: With regard to the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, wasn't it the same company who was hired to dispose of the rubble?
JH: ... Of the evidence, yes. Controlled Demolition, Inc., the same company that was subcontracted by Tully Construction in the aftermath of the World Trade Center collapses to put into effect this plan to recycle the steel, was, one of the same companies that took the evidence from the remains of the Murrah building and buried it before it could be properly investigated.
http://911research.wtc7.net/interviews/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html
On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence
-- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find --
that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.
The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents
