The 9/11 Fake Planes

 

Jim Fetzer’s recent study of  the “no planes” theory:

 

 Steve De’ak – aka The Missile Man states the following:

“For all who insist the impact videos depict a real event, here’s a three minute clip that contains proof to the contrary.

Anyone who has ever toyed around with video editing knows how much fun it can be to use a tripod.  With footage captured by a camera on a tripod and with commonly used layering techniques a photographer can make things appear and disappear from the video. All of the 9/11 footage I have seen show evidence of tripod use, and in this case I’ll use the Herzarkhani footage as an example.  This footage was allegedly captured from the deck of a tour-boat but there are fifteen frames that prove without a doubt this guy was a pro with a tripod or dolly on dry land pretending to be an amateur on a boat.

Because there wasn’t a real jet for him to focus on for or this shot to work the camera operator had to practice the camera movement from a predetermined location and on a stable platform because to insert a 3D image of a jet into 2D footage is infinitely less complicated if the footage is captured from a stable platform like a tripod, and sure enough Herzarkhani had one.”:

 

9/11 Amateurs Were Using Tripods

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “The 9/11 Fake Planes

  1. “In conclusion we can be 100% certain the planes were not real. Apart from defying the laws of physics with impossible crash dynamics the planes do not even look real. The question is: are the planes digital composites (CGI) inserted into real video or is it a 3D projected image using advanced technology not known to the public? Richard D Hall’s 3D radar data analysis has confirmed that the trajectory of the “planes” in all the videos match up with the radar data. If video fakery was used i.e the planes were digital composites, the question can be asked why would they go to the trouble of making sure all the “plane” videos match up with the radar data but do such a poor job of rendering the planes which look like poor quality CGI, Why does the wing momentarily disappear in six different videos? This still from the Hezarkhani video shows a digital composite plane on the top and the original “plane” from the Hezarkhani video underneath. The digital composite plane looks more realistic. Here is a video showing how easy it is to create a digital composite plane and insert it into real video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds Here is another example of a digital composite plane inserted into the Evan Fairbanks video. Why would they create such poor quality CGI planes that look different in different videos? If the planes were a digital composite it should look the same in every video. Based on Richard D Hall’s radar data analysis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5DgFcpsxes), the witness testimony and the fact the left wing disappears in 4 videos the evidence points to the plane being a 3D projection. Richard D Hall believes there may have been a solid object, probably a small missile at the centre of the “illusion”, with an image of a Boeing 767 being projected around it.”

    https://911planeshoax.com/

    In Dr. Judy Wood’s book, the closest she comes to “naming a weapon” is merely describing what it creates: magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions [page 365 of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?]

    Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth’s magnetic field coinciding with each of the five key events at the WTC on 9/11. They were: 1.) the creation of the plane shaped hole in WTC1 at 8:46am, 2.) the creation of the plane shaped hole in WTC2 at 9:02am, 3.) the beginning of the molecular disassociation of WTC2 at 9:59am, 4.) the beginning of the molecular disassociation of WTC2 at 9:59am, and 5.) the beginning of the molecular disassociation of WTC7 at 5:20pm. [Chapter 19, pages 413 to 430 of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?]

    Wing spars are built of strong but brittle forged aluminum and must break off. But back to the government-media fairy tale: As each wing root and its jet fuel and heavy undercarriage crashed into walls and floors, no fuel spilled out and nothing burned across the face of the building, all fuel being carried inside. Since 767 wings are swept back about 35 degrees, each intact wing had to sever steel columns and spandrel belts sequentially over milliseconds, each aluminum forward edge effectively “sawing” through steel columns/belts and steel-reinforced concrete floors with nothing breaking off. Amazing! Despite no structural connection to the main spar, the right wing tip in question survived this assault and then tattooed the aluminum façade, demurely slipping inside each building. Gullible Americans and most American physicists, judging by their silence, join Steven E. Jones in embracing the WTC airplane fiction.

    Both Mark Bingham and Todd Beamer attended Los Gatos High School and were reported killed on 9/11 when their United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into a field near Shanksville, PA. Is the Physics Department of Los Gatos High School pretending to be naive about a certain subject by not pointing out a flaw in the established belief of 9/11 and what evidence a real plane crash would leave behind?

    Los Gatos High School Road Runner Physics: These clips from Warner Brothers Road Runner and Coyote cartoons are intended for use by physics teachers. Suggestions for use are included next to each clip. It is recommended that you download and archive each clip that you would like to use. The posting of theses clips for educational purposes conforms with fair use of the copyright act.

    http://www.lghs.net/about_us/staff_directory/teacher_pages/dan_burns/road_runner_physics/

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Thank you for the thoughtful analysis. My answer to your questions and Richard D Hall’s analysis:

    Most of the evidence points to faked videos rather than a hologram:

    1) People who were faking the videos used a 3D model of the whole WTC area, probably more precise than the one created by Richard D Hall. Why go to such trouble? To confuse subsequent researchers and make the “planes” appear to be real. The national security state has infinitely more resources than Richard D Hall does.

    2) Why would they create such poor quality CGI planes that look different in different videos? These “planes” look believable enough and easily fooled 99% or more of the population. Poor quality is necessary for faking the videos because blurry low-quality videos are much easier to fake.

    3) The “airplane” videos where the model of the camera is known have much worse quality and resolution of the video than this camera would normally produce: evidence of intentional tampering with the videos.

    4) Various researchers noticed that in several cases, various versions of the same “amateur video of a plane impact” have different sound tracks.

    5) There are two versions of one of the videos of the South Tower impact: one version shows a spherical object much smaller than a plane; and the other version shows an airplane: evidence of video compositing.

    6) Ace baker showed that slight wobbling of the videos does not match the steady movement of the inserted planes: evidence of video compositing.

    7) There is a good video out there demonstrating that a tripod was used selectively exactly during the “plane impact” while the rest of the video is shaking and moving around, to imitate the “amateur videos”. Again this is evidence of video fakery.

    Conclusion: All the “amateur videos of 9/11 planes” were fake videos, heavily edited and tampered with. There is no question about that. It is possible that a solid object was present in the sky on that day, perhaps a missile or may be even a hologram. The Arguments 1 through 7 above suggest that a hologram is unnecessary to explain what is shown in those videos. The national security state had (and still has) enough resources to produce countless fake witnesses, and it has control over major media. No holograms were necessary.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Steve De’ak says:

      “I have to disagree with the analysis that states the whole thing was a 3D animation. The evidence I’ve seen is that they used real video that was edited to mask whatever it was that was really used to cut the holes and then inserted a CGI plane. The videos and photos of the explosion match from video to video and photo to photo, indicating they were not CGI. All the amateur footage of the plane impacts were indeed faked, but they were faked using tried and true video layering techniques that have been used by movie magicians since the dawn of the motion picture. Furthermore, videos such as the one from Jay Zimmerman were not filmed using a tripod and even if he had been using a tripod to capture the footage it contains clues that would NOT have been deliberately added to a 3D animation, therefore the most likely explanation is that the video indicates exactly what it appears to indicate.

      For example Jay Zimmerman captured a large plume of dust and paper pouring out of a wall column well-before the collapse sequence, indicating the towers were packed with dust and paper, a conclusion the perpetrators would not have wanted viewers to arrive at especially if it was true. Videos such as these are proof that this was a staged event but not a fully “CGI event.”

      Still further, had the whole thing been a CGI animation we would have been able to see the impacts live. But they didn’t do that – they showed us an animation of a jet flying behind the towers, followed by the explosion live, but all the amateur shots that showed the jet sliding into the tower were released later after they had time to edit their footage. Had they been recorded CGI scenes there would have been no reason to wait to release the “impact” shots later. There are many other examples of clues in the amateur footage that would not have been deliberately added to a CGI model, and I must note that it is in the best interests of the perpetrators for the viewers to think the whole 102 minute event was prerecorded because to do so eliminates the evidence that can shed light on how it was done and by extension who dunnit. I’m happy to discuss this in detail,”

      Steve De’ak

      http://yankee451.info

      http://911crashtest.org

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Marvelous critique! I am very impressed. How do you explain the radar track for the apparent plane 1,200′ feet to the right of the images derived from the videos? That to me was the most compelling argument he presented. Your view?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Truther Musical

A '9/11 Truther' Musical Production

Discover

A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.

The Daily Post

The Art and Craft of Blogging

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: