Jim Fetzer:Mounting Evidence of 9/11 Video Fakery

[mason-free party]

OpEdNews
Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_fe_070726_mounting_evidi ence_o.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
July 28, 2007

Mounting Evidence of 9/11 Video Fakery: New proof of media duplicity, Scholars claim

By Jim Fetzer

New studies of media coverage of the attacks on the Twin Towers have raised serious questions about the integrity of television broadcasts over CNN, CBS and FOX NEWS, according to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a non-partisan society of students, experts, and scholars. "I used to think that the very idea of faking 'live' broadcasts was at least faintly absurd," observed James Fetzer, the society's founder. "But it turns out that there is a delay between an event's actual occurrence and the broadcasting of footage of that same event, which creates the opportunity for image manipulation."

New proof has appeared in "September Clues," a series of studies of these broadcasts currently available on YouTube and on google video. "These six studies, each of which is less than ten minutes in length, make it very difficult to deny that something was amuck on 9/11," Fetzer added, "and they have now been corroborated by an in-depth analysis of the digital properties of a 'live' WNYW (Fox 5) helicopter video of United Airlines Fight 175 hitting the South Tower, which Ace Baker has provided. It, too, can now be found on-line as 'Chopper 5 Composite' at http://www.acebaker.com. We have also linked to them from our web site, 911scholars.org."

Fetzer said he was affected in his thinking when relatives traveled to Madison from Milwaukee to visit with his daughter and son-in-law. "They wanted to watch a Brewer's game, so we put it on TV," he explained. "They had a favorite announcer who was on radio. So we put the radio by the television. To our astonishment, the radio broadcast was so far ahead of the television coverage that we knew whether it would be a ball, a strike, or a hit before the ball had left the pitcher's hand. I realized deception was possible."

The first segment of "September Clues", which is subtitled, "The 911 News Media Coverage," provides an instructive example. It starts with CNN footage in which, as the plane hits the building and begins to emerge from the opposite side, there is a "FADE TO BLACK!" On CBS, the wife of the producer reports observing the plane hit the building from her location in Chelsea. On FOX NEWS, a helicopter broadcast goes "FADE TO BLACK!" at the same point at which this occurred on CNN. As the voiceover explains, such events are important for multiple reasons, including:

(a) the "FADE TO BLACK!"s on CNN and FOX occur just as the nose of the plane is emerging from the opposite side of the building, as though an editor were seeking to cover the image;

(b) the announcer on CBS does not appear to notice any plane as it approaches the building, which would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to observe from Chelsea;

(c) microphones located on-site near the base of the South Tower failed to pick up sounds of any impact, which presumably would have caused significant auditory reverberations.

Point (a) is especially striking, Fetzer said. "The study points out that the nose of the plane exactly conforms to the nose of a Boeing 767, but this one had just passed through 200 feet of steel and concrete and should have been severely damaged if not completely destroyed. Pixel pattern comparison confirms the correspondence, which, under the circumstances, would be physically impossible." The "FADE" takes place 0.28 seconds late, moreover, which appears consistent with human hand/eye response coordination.

They made a mistake they were unable to correct in time, Fetzer said. Six minutes later, CNN repeated the footage, but with the oddity that the network banner masked the appearance of the nose as it exited the building, as though that were not the most stunning feature of the video record. "That this was done provides powerful confirmation that the 'FADE' was a deliberate effort to conceal the occurrence of an event with the potential to reveal the deception. What's the probability of two networks 'fading' at exactly the same moment of their 'live' coverage, if this was all on the level?"

Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" substantiates these concerns with proof that the image of the plane was recorded separately from the image of the Twin Towers, Fetzer said. He discovered that, when variations induced by the helicopter's motion are removed from the raw footage, apparent variations in aircraft speed that should be reduced are instead increased. Moreover, as the plane emerges from the building, the nose cone itself appears to accelerate and decelerate, repeatedly. That would not occur if this were an actual event being recorded on an authentic video.

The five other other segments of "September Clues" address other anomalies. "Part 2: The Flying Telephants," for example, shows that various videos of the airplane's approach are inconsistent with one another, where some show a smooth, perfectly horizontal trajectory into the building and others display a steep vertical descent before impact. A few show no plane at all. "This means they can't all be authentic," Fetzer observed, "but they could all be faked, which I would never have taken seriously before these studies."

"September Clues, Part 5: 17 Seconds" shows that audio beeps that were 17 seconds apart were included in broadcasts from the major networks, apparently in order to synchronize the footage being used. In some cases, the networks kept the audio track of the impact on the South Tower, but changed the video track so the nose cone exit would not be seen. The difference between the official "time of impact" at 9:03:11 and the seismic effects recorded at 9:02:54 also turns out to be 17 seconds, which appears to have been the interval that created the opportunity for image manipulation.



Kevin Barrett, the founder of MUJCA and a member of Scholars, reports he is troubled by these new studies. "I guess I'll have to take this possibility more seriously now," Barrett said. "In the past, I have assumed video fakery was far-fetched and that anyone who endorsed it was probably a crackpot! Now I'm not so sure." Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist in the Department of Labor of the Bush administration, has gone further, contributing a chapter to a new book from Scholars, The 9/11 Conspiracy, which argues video fakery may have been used to conceal the absence of planes actually impacting the building, a more controversial claim.



The most important question about these studies is that they might be fake videos of video fakery, but Fetzer thinks they are authentic. "I have the FAA Registry results for these four planes," Fetzer said. "Not only were AA11 and AA77 not deregistered until January 20, 2002, but UA93 and UA175 were not deregistered until September 28, 2005, which is quite peculiar for planes that were destroyed on September 11, 2001. It raises the prospect none of them were involved in 9/11."



The technology for extremely efficient video manipulation has been around for some time. The on-line journal, techreview.com, published a piece entitled "Lying with Pixels" (July/August 2000), explaining, "Seeing is no longer believing. The image you see on the evening news could well be a fake—a fabrication of fast new video manipulation technology." An example is moving Katarina Witt in and out of an ice skating exhibition. It could already be done on TV in real time prior to 2000. That was a year before 9/11.


Similar delays occur on radio. "I called a friend recently after a show to ask what she thought, and she told me to 'Hang on!' because she was still listening." The question of motivation for such a complex deception may also have an answer. "I have been asked, 'What are the chances that those planning the demolition of these buildings would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers to prepare the towers to begin falling precisely there?'" Fetzer said. "The answer may be 100%."

Ace Baker mentions a group long convinced of video fakery, including Gerard Holmgren, Rosalee Grable, StillDiggin, Killtown, and others, who have been frustrated their arguments have not been taken seriously. "For that reason, I'm including this subject in a conference on 'The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not,' which will be held in Madison on August 3-5, 2007 (911scholars.org)," Fetzer said. "We are going do our best to get to the bottom of this. Truth about 9/11 is stranger than fiction." (See http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/07/prweb541060.htm )



Authors Website: 911scholars.org

Authors Bio: Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[Sherlock Holmes]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8045542387672451515&q=septem ber+clues&total=77&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I think everyone should watch this documentary. However all I will say is this, NPT is damaging. I don't want to get into arguments with people about it on this forum. So PLEASE don't start shouting and screaming. I would advise people to watch this documentary. There is no doubt that live video feed is delayed, as is audio when you call into a 'live' radio show, there is around 15-20 seconds delay. This whole thing stinks, and yes the "September Clues" video is convincing. HOWEVER the strongest evidence for the 'man in the pub', for the 'man on the street' ‘the geezer with the 25 year mortgage and 2 kids’ is the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7, especially the BBC footage. That is slam-dunk evidence which doesn’t require any mental gymnastics. I'm sorry but the NPT people need to be realistic, stop bloody obsessing over it. Sure watch this film, it's not for those who are uninitiated with 9/11 Truth.

September clues is definately "A-Level", it's your Pascal's Triangle of 9/11, whereas Loose Change and Terrorstorm, Improbable Collapse, Mind the Gap, Ludicrous Diversion, The British Broadcasting Conspiracy, 9/11 Mysteries etc. is your "O-Level" nothing more taxing than pi-r-squared etc. to use a mathematical analogy - pretty much accessible to all.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8045542387672451515&q=septem ber+clues&total=77&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I've seriously been looking into 9/11 for a while, and I don't want to be arrogant, patronising or condescending but I've read the following books, just so this illustrates that I'm not a part-timer. I’ve also had the police visit me about my DVD distribution activities!! Synthetic Terror, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, The Terror Conspiracy, Christian Faith & the Truth about 9/11, 9/11 and American Empire, and yes I’ve even read Fetzer's The 9/11 Conspiracy.

So what about NPT? Bottom line for me is simple: ‘The man on the street will never buy it.’ So I advise all stick to the strong evidence and for those who want to question further, then yes NPT and this documentary is worth watching.

[John White]

Not NPT in GC again MFP

I hope you are not about to spam it up several times after my having to shift things on your account yet another time: that has definately worn thin. Your choice.

[Killtown]

[mason-free party]

[John White]

[John White]

Now let me see: according to Holmgren, Jim Fetzer is a "Dirty Traitorus Shill" or something similar. As a dedicated researcher into this area MFP, do you agree or disagree with Holmgrens assesment of Fetzer, as clearly the accusation, not without substance, is a serious issue?

[gruts]

well holmgren seems to have thrown all his toys out of the playpen recently and there generally seems to be a lot of infighting in the NPT ghetto at the mo....

http://www.911researchers.com/node/658

hell hath no fury like a noplaner scorned!

[mason-free party]

[marky 54]

who gives a nonsense about winning a stupid arguement, its truth that matters.
and when its truth that matters then why would people be bothered when they are proved wrong?

unless people are only bothered about being right regardless of if they have the facts or not.

im willing to accept NPT and always look at what it has to say, but the problem has always been evidence, if i had seen any that was convincing i'd be the first admitting it and accepting it.

the nose in nose out arguement is the only thing that is puzzling, but even then i would'nt jump to that conclusion on that one thing alone, especially when their is more disinfo out there than truth.

[gruts]

[egw]

Jim Fetzer: Mounting evidence that he is a disinfo shill.

See this for example:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=10620

[gruts]

unfortunately, no planers tend to disregard the opinions of people who aren't no planers, but they all seem to idolise gerard holmgren who had this to say (among other things) about fetzer recently:

"In any research and analysis community with even the slightest shred of integrity and intelligence, Fetzer would have been tarred and feathered and rolled out of town on the railroad track almost as soon as he appeared."

a bit like the pot calling the kettle black IMHO, but there you go....

[egw]

I've heard that Fetzer cut his teeth doing a similar thing, muddying the waters for JFK assassination researchers.

[marky 54]

of course there is mounting evidence, there are more and more fakes added to the web each day, which are then picked up and pushed or just created and then pushed as real footage from news channels, inbetween attempted discrediting of persons who have done more than most to get the word out, by websites pushing tv fakery.

its what you'd expect from those not wanting the truth about 9/11 to come out. im always willing to be proved wrong but im convinced many have fallen for it and are now unknowingly doing the work of the 'perps' who ever they are, for them, simply by helping to spew disinfo/diversion/and helping to discredit others who in most cases have nothing to do with proving tv fakery is true or not, but who have also done a lot towards spreading the word.

it makes you wonder if its to discredit people whilst posing as truthers inorder to sway the rest into the same way of thinking, especially when most of the so called 'evidence' is lacking in provibility/believibility/credibility.

i get sick of waiting for evidence to see what all the hype is about whilst hearing words like "mounting evidence" where most see none.

[911Eyewitness]