-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [911InsideJobbers] [Fwd: More on the ultimate hoax job] Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:48:51 -0500 From: The Webfairy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: More on the ultimate hoax job Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:52:14 -0500 From: The Webfairy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kyle F. Hence wrote: > Before I offer my take on this photo evidence offered by Izzy or > malaprop let me say I realize I am coming late to a discussion and > review on this issue. I have been busy and working hard to stay > focused in order to finish a documentary I've worked over the past > year and a half. Also, there just seems to me to be a never-ending > stream of conspiracy theories of the week or month and I've not had > the time to examine them properly. Pods, military planes, missiles, > now "no planes." The No Planes evidence is not "new." I discovered there was no plane in the first hit footage within three days of the release of Hunt the Boeing. This was taken as a joke, but I was serious. This precedes all other excuses and scenarios except the standdown, which now makes sense in light of the fact that military planes do not scramble for Chunks of PR fiction or for cartoons. There still is no plane in the first hit footage. http://missilegate.com Unimpeachable Forensic Quality 1/60th of a second apart, both created by me, and my earstwhile debunker, Salters http://missilegate.com/indexx.htm Not even the Salter version can manage to show a plane. This may be why he/they/it slunk off in despair. http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=80 My first backup came when Gerard Holmgren discovered the Bureau of Transportation Safety database, a listing of all domestic flights, had no listings for Flights 77 and 11. http://iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html To not be listed in the BTS, a flight would have to be cancelled at least a week in advance. Else it would say cancelled, crashed, or whatever. The database disappeared for a while, and when it returned, the flights were listed, but they didn't take off. The last I heard, now they take off, but it's from heliports. > For the purposes of this email let's just put aside the anecdotal > evidence from a variety of quarters since I have not cataloged or > sourced them and they are all after all just anecdotal. They are just > from memory and include the question of the eyewitness reports of 3 > black boxes being recovered, the wheel/tire that flew out of a corner > of the first tower when it was hit, eyewitness accounts who watched a > plane approach the south tower, pictures of other debris found at the > site, etc. The supposed eyewitnesses to the black box recovery were subsequently indicted for looting Ground Zero. This is a story that got trotted out in time for Jimmy Walter's first conference, but the contents of those alleged boxes has never been revealed. http://911foreknowledge.com/debris examines Spooker Corners and the alleged debris found there. Since this wheel managed to "land" beneath a construction canopy and the underlying business canopy without making any hole in it, and the dented sign is not in any possible trajectory, this is phoney planted mystery debris, some of which can be seen preplanted in the Brave New World sequence opening the Naudet DVD. http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm This is reaction shots to the first explosions. Since Church and Murray is generally a busy intersection, it shows that the streets had already been blocked off in anticipation of the days fireworks. > First I would like to challenge those who subscribe to this 'no plane' > theory and who first discovered these videos, etc. to establish > credibility to their claims by producing documentation as to chain of > custody of the videos used to make the case that no planes were used. > I'm not holding my breath. It's a tall order and probably impossible. > Very unlike the video offered by Richard Siegel. Good reporting, > true investigative reporting must have good sources that have proven > themselves by getting it right consistently. The videos are documented by 911 Chronology Source http://www.archive.org/details/911-Chronology-Source and Tim Canale's 8 hours of live coverage http://maebrussell.com Any one with Virtualdub and the Virtualdub Zoom filter can make slow motion enlargements freshly. Video snippets of 911 are sprinkled throughout the web even 5 years later, collected by hundreds of anonymous people who tivo'd the defining event of our time. All the videos shown to us on TV show the same preposterousness. There are late appearing "videos" that turn out to be cartoons, such as the SkyShark http://fooledagainon911.com and Saltergate http://thewebfairy.com/911/saltergate which have no provinance in the live coverage. > > Given that it is highly unlikely to prove chain of custody for much of > this evidence after so many years I would argue that credibility and > soundness of any theory or presentation of evidence is flimsy at best > and at worst grossly irresponsible and reckless feeding into the worst > of stereotypes people have of 'crazy conspiracy buffs', etc.. Don't > get me wrong. I'm one who believes that the truth is often stranger > than fiction so I approach things with an open mind but in this case, > after consideration, I'm must express serious concern and once again > push for a much higher standard of what can be constituted as > /evidence /(circumstantial or otherwise) as we present a case that > someone inside the government had a hand in the attacks. My case is not that "someone inside the government'" had a hand in the attacks. My case is that the Mainstream Media (and much of the allegely alternative media) is owned by defense contractors,bought up with washed funds from international drugrunning. 911 was presented to us as a scripted Reality TV show, with the intent of Shock and Awe trauma conditioning, and laying the excuses for martial law and perpetual war. > Again, Richard's 911eyewitness video was in a safe deposit box for > years and he has 1010 WINS radio playing in real time through the > course of the collapses as his camera rolls tape. Entirely different > case, right? So I would hope that Richard and all of us, especially > Richard, can see the stark difference between his video evidence of > collapses and that offered as proof for 'no planes'. I thought that > Richard's video of the explosions before collapse showing clouds of > dust at street level were so compelling I brought them to ABC News > producer Rebecca Abrahams in an effort to get her to do a feature on > the evidence for controlled demolition. I did so because I had a high > degree of confidence in the chain of custody backed up by safe deposit > box records and the plain circumstances of the video recording. When 1010 WINS radio switches to the CNN feed, the delay of the "live" broadcast becomes evident. As the building begins to tumble, CNN blithely chatters on for a length of time that would be measurable. I am presuming the delay is the exact amount required by the WESCAM military helicopter video system. Rick Siegel didn't see any planes. He knew thousands of people in New York and they didn't see any planes either, even if they believed in planes. Multiple explosions from ground level are shown, and so are a profusion of helicopters which create flashes just as the building starts to evaporate. > > Next issue. Many of those who advance this theory, based on blurry > video from unknown sources, appear to subscribe to the notion that > whoever pulled this off had full control of the cameras shooting the > towers in real time or gained control after the fact or both. I would > then ask, assuming for a moment they are correct, that if such parties > had such extreme and total control of the footage (and ability to > manipulate same) would they not also have the ability to fabricate all > manner of images so as to create a false trail of evidence just to > throw a fantastic monkey wrench into the mix of those who might call > into question what happened after the fact. An enlarged closeup is SUPPOSED TO BE BLURRY. Enlarging cannot increase the resolution, it can only make the existing resolution look bigger. If it magically looked "clear" like supposed passenger jets spewing chemtrails, then we could know it was fake. There is no method or software that I know of or have read about as secret even which can take an existing big ole boeing jet, it's associated noise and tremendous fireball crash and remove it from footage in real time, while substituting a hippityhopper toy plane on a preposterous course. http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/reporter.didnt.see.plane.htm It was the Krash Kartoon http://thewebfairy.com/911/krash (below later cartoon) that the newsbunny in the studio was watching. > > Again, those who are pushing these theories and so-called photo or > video evidence cannot deny the /possibility/ of a false trail planted > by the perps because they believe a theory that put the perps in total > control of most of the video taping at the moment of the attacks and > after the fact as well as required. In other words, they cannot deny > the possibility that those they subscribe a deception in the 9/11 > attacks themselves also created a hoax to further the psyop, in this > case of those who might see beyond the larger deception. Yeah, they created a deception. The second hit is a parade of TV Fakery with "planes' who's flightpaths have more to do with artistic convenience than with geography. http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/06/2nd-hit-video-anomalies-sloppiness.html They DID "create a hoax to further the psyop, in this case of those who might see beyond the larger deception" This is our point. > And for Nico who no doubt will attack me and will quote WingTV who > quoted me out of context when I said that "the American people can't > handle the truth." let me just say that I was simply observing the > fact (in a private conversation), true to this day, that for many, no > matter how compelling the evidence, even proof (as in a lie proven by > juxtaposition of official public statements and plain facts), there is > denial or, or in other words, in inability to 'handle the truth', to > accept what is plain to someone not living with blinders on. Now I am > first to admit I had blinders on relative to the twin tower's > collapse, and waited cautiously until scientists examined the > evidence. Not the case for me with WTC 7. But now having seen > Steven's presentation about thermite I believe there is a strong case > for controlled demolition and very viable explanation for hot molten > metal several stories below street level even weeks after the > collapse; a more likely explanation than nuclear detonation. The American people have to learn to handle the truth. Or die. I am tired of dragging lemmings back from the cliffs. I want to just stand back and say "JUMP, JUMP," and let the IQ of the universe be raised by their demise, but that leaves good people just as dead as the fools. So I tie a knot in the end of my rope and hold on. > No doubt we've all been played when it comes to 9/11. Those who > advance this 'no plane' theory cannot for a second with a straight > face claim that it's impossible for the perps to have engineered an > elaborate false trail because they place the perps in the position to > do so presumably with the know-how and technology to do so. Your hangout violates the rule of Occam's Razor. Too many unnecessary convolutions. The video is fake because it was prepared as audio-visual aids i for the various wargames/terror drills "coincidentally" scheduled for that very day. Innocents involved in the production were scripted to be aboard Flights 11 and 77 which didn't exist except as a ruse to eliminate witnesses. Surviving video artists had to go along with the plot for their own good, and are still busy producing fake videos using the same techniques, http://thewebfairy.com/911/saltergate and newer virtual reality techniques as is seen in the planeless new pentagon fakes. > Furthermore to believe this theory, you'd have to discount what is > clearly a possibility as well as discount the anecdotal evidence from > eyewitnesses and claim that photos and video at street level showing > aircraft wreckage (I remember that tire) were planted. This is a typical "eyewitness." http://thewebfairy.com/911/curtainchewer I have a whole liars club with witnesses who could tell Osama did it, giving their little snippets of plotline development. Then I have an authentic witness getting brushed off http://thewebfairy.com/911/911/debris/itsabomb.htm by the same reporter who seems to have advance knowledge that building 7 is going to come down: http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/canale/18_1-7.will.collapse.mpg > As I said recently in an email to Rosalee, here one has to go so far > down the rabbit hole that one has no idea which way is up. And that > may have been exactly the intention. Finally, there will be some who > will say that since it's me, the target of so much suspicion, who is > challenging the 'no planes' theory then it must be true. To those > folks I say, just look to my simple points and consider them on their > face. I want to believe you are just a typical representative schnookie of the sort that has to be won over if we are going to have any hope of saving our planet from the liars and their singular power which is the power of lies. > Now back to my focus of getting my film done. I hope to reach American > and people around the world with a very simple story that will begin > to open their minds and hearts to a horrific deception and cover up > that is 9.11. Trailer and viral video featuring Coulter's comments > coming soon if all goes as planned and hoped. Here Hence speaks of his film, but when I challenged him to turn the Naudet 911 first hit into frames for himself, he said he didn't have video skills. I suppose there are aspects of filmmaking that do not require video skills, so I'd like to expand my offer/plea to anyone who does have or is willing to learn the video skill to use VirtualDub and the Virtualdub Zoom filter to replicate my work. It is the ultimate proof when one can see for oneself, all excuses aside. > > Kyle > > > malaprop wrote: >> When perpetrators of a hoax are caught switching photo evidence. >> >> Some errors are too great to leave on the loose to wreak havoc and >> must be replaced. I.e.hoaxers replacing authentic pictures of >> Saddam, with photos of his stand-in at official events, to imprint a >> new Saddam in our memories. Embarrassing and impossible film Apollo >> photos were quietly replaced with the new digital, photoshopped >> substitutes, with errors corrected. >> The amount of evidence is so overwhelming, that simpler is >> better--you only need one fake passenger, one fake 'plane' etc....to >> make your case of a hoax. >> >> This is one such embarrassment------an extreme blow up of an actual >> CNN screen capture shortly after WTC2 was attacked. The 'crawl' on >> the bottom of the screen reassures us it was on 9/11, and not days, >> weeks later that this was shown. This was fresh off the grill--well, >> minus perhaps a 10 second viewing-delay. >> >> What is wrong with this? What was in this footage that forced this >> clips removal and substitution after I had posted it all over the net? >> >> EXTREME BROOKLIN HEIGTHS WTC2, GREEN SPIRE. >> http://www.gallerize.com/Videos/CNN_Brooklyn_Heights.swf >> >> >> >> >> CNN screen of green tower-no impact >> http://thewebfairy.com/911/2hit/newjetcrash.htm (Thanks for saving, WF) >> >> Notice in the screen capture the position of the two green spires, >> pretty much equidistant from the sides of the wtc towers. (there's >> a story behind this footage, totally unbelievable of course, that >> includes a guy with a hand-held mega-zoom camera inside an office, as >> opposed to the likely use of a dolly, crane outside.) >> The problem, of course is in the wedge--formed by the right side of >> the green spire and the corner of the wtc2--no trace of a plane, let >> alone an explosion, flying debris that would result from behind that >> spire, as impacts are extremely violent. Come to think of >> it--there's no trace of a missile, either in that wedge. >> >> So the perpetrators went to work and came up with a shiny new version >> that took care of the tell-tale 'wedge, and took care of the mushy >> plane with the drooping engine, with a much more >> anatomicially-correct plane, and placed it on the hereisnewyork.com >> site, and the new version credited with Aaron Taub, the sites' owner, >> who has degrees in video work.. >> Researcher/writers, unaware, like this new revised forgery so much >> better they are using it, even examining it, and pod people have the >> pretty plane to search for a pod, even if it was some 4 years in >> arriving. [Why the "pod" appears on one plane but not others, might >> be explained by that not all of the forgers were whistleblowers.] >> >> >> How they did it was to get rid of the wedge, by moving the 4 bldgs in >> front over to the right (note the two green spires.) A little error >> there---notice the spired tower to the far right--they moved that >> over even more to make it look more symetrical, revealling a column >> of windows that wasn't visible before. >> >> http://hereisnewyork.org//jpegs/photos/2087.jpg >> >> Now for WTC1 the 'shot' that they were the only ones to get--- >> >> I cannot improve on this slide show [Bravo! nineeleven2001] and it's >> captions, that could not be 'planer' by any further comment--except >> this: keep in mind all the clips have the same contrast and are >> consistent with one another, yet keep an eye at what happens to the >> shadows of the object: Read his captions. >> >> http://www.angelfire.com/comics/nineeleven2001/aa11/aa11-en.html >> >> Conclusion: I am totally convinced that no planes were used in the 4 >> attacks on 9/11 other than virtual ones. What we see may have been >> masks used to conceal missiles, or on the other hand, covers for >> planted explosives. >> >> >> One last one: >> >> http://www.gallerize.com/Videos/CNN_Best_Angle.swf >> >> No interaction with the bldg.-- >> no deceleration-- >> no breakup, no flying parts >> no crumpling >> no "gash" hole appearing until plane is inside. >> >> ------- >> >> Same for this one, only more so! >> http://www.gallerize.com/Videos/Spiegel_TV.swf >> no deceleration >> no reaction to hitting a bldg.! >> no hole --largely absent! >> >> >> malaprop aka izzy Yahoo! Groups Links ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/TySplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/ Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
