Thursday, May 11, 2017

ABC's Magic "Spinning Towers"


[N.B. The ABC News clip above is excerpted from the official, on-line television archive for 9/11. ]

I'll say it again :" Nothing we saw on TV that morning "live from Manhattan"was genuine "live footage.""

In support of this "outrageous" claim, here's a video I recently came across that examines some original "live" broadcast 9/11 footage from US mainstream [nationwide] outlet ABC, called "The Spinning Towers".

Although I'm not a member there, I still visit Simon Shack's " September Clues" forums on a daily basis, and had not seen this particular, very simple analysis posted there before.

Maybe Simon and associated don't think much of it , or maybe it's there somewhere and I missed the post. I don't know at this time.

My Own "Logic" Applied:

I thought about it and concluded that although the twin towers sides would not change size relative to each other quite as obviously as the extreme distant objects in the shot move from left to right in the sequence- as the helicopter allegedly moved right to left across the scene [because those towers are closer to the camera], that even so, there should still be enough of a visible change in their size relative to each other from the camera's perspective so that the partially exposed, furthest  right side of the tower nearest the camera would either narrow significantly, or completely disappear from view, given the change in viewpoint of the heli-cam.

ABC's Magic Spinning Towers:

However, as  can be clearly seen in the video below, while the [presumed] helicopter circles the smoking towers right to left [as evidenced by the left to right motion of all of the background scenery],  the same tower sides somehow [magically]  constantly turn  to  face the camera lens, so that they are in fact always seen from the exact same angle/perspective throughout the sequence, despite the change in camera perspective caused by the continual movement of the helicopter across the scene right to left, as if the towers themselves were turning in place to always face the "camera" lens:


Logical conclusion? [For myself, anyways :-) ] :

 The entire ABC sequence above was faked, pre- 9/11.

 That is: the background, the foreground, the smoke, the towers, the helicopter perspective- all fake [i.e. 100% fake digital footage poorly manufactured/prefabricated, with 2nd or 3rd rate software on computers, prior to 9/11, then broadcast on 9/11 as being genuine live imagery] :-(  .

Questions/ Lies

Questions you might consider asking yourself, if you agree that the footage is fake "live footage":

1] If this scene, broadcast on 9/11 as live, right after the alleged second plane {Fl.175} struck WTC2, was in fact faked beforehand, why would you believe that any part of the rest of ABC's "live broadcast" of 9/11 , including the actual second plane into WTC2 sequence, and including all tower collapse imagery, was actually genuine?

2] If ABC was broadcasting faked "live footage" on 9/11, why would you believe that any of the other 4 mainstream national networks [ NBC, Fox, CBS and CNN] , which all showed almost identical imagery to that seen on ABC that morning, was in fact genuine?

Only you, dear reader, can answer those two questions. Have fun!

Regards, onebornfreeatyahoodotcom

Thursday, December 1, 2016

BBC Caught Fabricating News to Start a War [a Limited HangOut]

Yay!  Sunlight hits Manhattan buildings from 2, opposite directions. Impressive!

“Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms…it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.” Philip K Dick.

"The press has been routinely creating fake news reports to start a war. This is a serious issue for the press is conspiring against the people to create war, sell climate change, and rig elections. This is by no means something new. They taught me in high school history class about how the press started the Spanish-American War by reporting that the Spanish attacked a US ship, which never happened.".................  ............"The movie “Wag the Dog” was based on how things really operate. They used the press as a co-conspirator to manipulate the public. This is also why this election has resulted in the collapse in public confidence in the mainstream press. "


obf comment: Although the movie “Wag the Dog” is briefly mentioned , nowhere does the article excerpted above mention perhaps the greatest modern real world example of the “Wag the Dog” criminal methodology, [i.e. the manufacture - on computers- of entirely faked imagery that is then broadcast as being authentic live video], which to my mind, was 9/11, when all 5 US MSM networks simultaneously broadcast 102 minutes of entirely faked [prefabricated on computers]"live" footage of a plane [Fl. 175] hitting a WTC tower, and[later] of the 2 main towers magically collapsing into their own "footprints" in record time.

So the few who understand the complete fraudulence of the "live" archived 9/11 imagery, myself included, would inevitably characterize this article as being a great example of a "limited hangout" :-)

And lets not fergit, the very same B.B.C. is on record as announcing the total collapse of WTC 7 before it "officially" [time-wise],even happened :-)

And so it goes....

Regards, onebornfreeatyahoo

Postscript: of course, the fact of the matter is, that when the collapse of WTC7 was shown on US MSM, once again [ and as with the two preceding "live" collapses shown, of WTC2, then WTC1], the US stations involved broadcast fake, pre-manufactured imagery, not authentic live imagery of a collapse:


Saturday, January 23, 2016

Fake Zapruder ['63] V. Fake Fox 5 [2001]


First of all, let me just mention that I am in no way a JFK assassination fact "freak" or expert, and so I have perhaps not seen many of the other videos that analyze the world famous Zapruder footage, but I have to say that this video is easily the best one I've seen to date, for a number of reasons.

1] It's short- only 10 minutes or so.

2] It is very clear and "to the point"

3] It analyses the Zapruder footage in a completely different way from what I've seen in other analyses':

 By analyzing the heretofore concealed layers of the movie, it shows it to be a composite of at least two layers, [presumably made from one original] ; where the foreground [ i.e JFK's limo etc.] and the background, [the spectators on the green], have been split off, then re-aligned, so that the original background and foregrounds were made to run out of synch with each other, thus creating a new, final  composite [i.e. what we now see as the Zapruder film]; that is, a false record of the events of that day, to hide whatever really did happen.

4] Zapruder Film Image Layering  Versus 9/11 Film Image Layering

My main point: the wholesale alteration of film imagery via an intricate layering process, although undoubtedly slower and more tedious to perform in the period 1963 -1975, I would assume, was obviously still doable back then [n.b.The Zapruder footage was not shown on network TV until until 1975 ] . 

The revealing of the fraudulent layering of the Zapruder movie to deliberately create  a false history is, I feel, very relevant to 9/11 and the alleged live TV video recordings of that day, as similar ,layering can be clearly seen in much of that allegedly "live" footage, also [ albeit computer generated]. 

For just one example, Simon Shack's analysis of the Fox5 video of Fl. 175's collision with WTC2 , clearly shows at least two extra  layers [not including the moving layer of the plane image itself] that were fabricated to create the fake "plane into building" footage broadcast "live" that morning on the Fox network:



And so it goes.....

"Layers of the onion", anyone?
 Regards, onebornfree.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Fl. 175's Speed: Fairbanks [290+ mph] or Fox [540 + mph]?

[Due to lazy research, where I mistakenly used an average 757/767 plane length of 178 ft. to make my original Fl.175 plane speed calculations, instead of the actual length of  159 ft., as pointed out by "CriticalMass" at Cluesforum , {thankyou,thankyou CM}, this post has been re-edited and updated on 10/28/15, with "new and improved"  plane speed calculations ]

Another "Plane" Fact : Contradictory Video Plane Speeds:

 The pre- strike plane speed  for Fl. 175 that I previously calculated via the Fox 5 footage as being 540+ mph , is directly contradicted by the Evan Fairbanks "amateur"footage - which shows a speed of either 148 mph, 296 mph., or 591 mph. depending on the claimed frame speed of the camera purportedly used :-) .

That previous post established the fact that at a video speed of 30 frames per second, the Fox 5 network footage showing Fl.175's alleged flight and collision with WTC2 reveals an [altogether physically impossible for plane] air speed of 540 +mph. as calculated frame to frame.

[N.B. "official " plane speed was/is 520 knots, or 598  mph :-) ].

A 9/11 Video "Evidence" Fact: For Plane Speed Calculations, Only Two Useful Video Sequences

There are only two Fl.175 flight/impact videos that I am aware of with sufficient camera/ viewer perspective of close to 90 degree [i.e. close to 90 degrees perpendicular to the planes path] that allow for a reasonably accurate calculation of frame to frame plane speed .

These two sequences are:

1]: The original Fox 5 national TV network broadcast sequence, as examined in my previous post :

Fig 1: frame 372 of Fox5 video  [ nose of Fl. 175 enters frame, circled in red]

                           Fig 2: frame 378 of Fox5 video [i.e 6 frames, and 1 plane length later]

and ....

2] The er, "amateur"sequence [ i.e never part of a "live" "as it happened", 9/11 US network broadcast ] purportedly captured by pro videographer "Evan Fairbanks", which was subsequently shown on a major US network later the same day, for the first time:


Speed Check

So, in order to double check on the plane speed I have calculated as being 540+mph in the Fox 5 sequence by measuring distance travelled per frame, at an assumed 30 frames per sec. camera speed, I then used the wonderful Killtown "Air Vs. Skyscraper" analysis of the Fairbanks sequence, which handily slows the sequence down to reveal individual frames of that sequence:

                        Youtube :

Plane Speed is Only 296 mph in Fairbanks Sequence?

If we ignore the main purpose of the Killtown analysis , and instead just concentrate on the number of frames the plane image takes to travel its own length, it will be seen that Killtown's frame by frame analysis of the Fairbanks sequence reveals the plane taking 11 frames to travel its own length:


Plane Length= 159 ft.  

According to Wikipedia, Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-200, 159 ft. long

Fairbanks Camera's Frame to Frame Speed ? 

The frame to frame speed of the camera used for the Fox5 sequence was apparently 30 frames per second.

I did a superficial search for technical details of the Fairbanks sequence, but drew a blank for frame to frame speed, so I've done my plane speed calculations using three different, most common speeds.

From what I understand, these most common frame to frame speeds are:

1] 15 frames per second

2] 30 frames per second [the industry standard, even in 2016 , as far as I'm aware]

3] 60 frames per second [n.b. I'm not sure if this camera speed was even available in 2001, but included it anyway].

Plane Speed =14.45 Ft. Per Frame

If the plane takes 11 frames to travel 159 ft, it travels 14.45 ft per frame.


1] at 15 frames per sec.: 14.45 ft per frame =216 ft per sec= 13,009 ft. per minute=780,545 ft. per hour:

= 148 mph

2] at 30 frames per sec. , 14.45 ft per frame = 434 ft per sec= 26,010 ft. per minute, = 1,560,600 ft. per hour:

= 296 mph.

3] at 60 frames per sec., 14.45 ft per frame = 867 ft per sec= 52,020 ft. per minute = 3,121,200 ft. per hour :

= 591 mph. 

Impossibly Slow, Or Impossibly Fast- Or, Both Fake? 

So there you have it , dear reader, according to the Evan Fairbanks video sequence Fl.175 was either traveling at an impossibly slow [to do what it next supposedly did] 148 mph, [at 15 frames per sec.]contradicting the Fox 5 plane speed of 540+ mph, and the official speed of 598 mph.

Or, an impossibly slow [to do what it next supposedly did] 296 mph,[ at 30 frames per sec.] once more contradicting the Fox5 plane speed of 540+ mph., and the official speed of 598 mph.


An impossibly fast 591 mph,[ at 60 frames per second, if that camera speed was available in 2001],  which was/is just as impossibly fast as the Fox5 plane speed of "only" 540+ mph [and  just as impossible as the official speed of 598 mph.]

Assume 30 Frames Per Second for Fairbanks Video?

If I assume that the Fairbanks video was shot at the same camera speed as the Fox5 sequence,[ a not unreasonable assumption, I believe], then the Fairbanks video, with its airspeed of 296 mph., directly contradicts the Fox5 sequence, which shows an airspeed of 540+  mph.


So Who do You Believe: 11 Frames Or, 6 Frames For Plane To Travel It's Own Length ? 

If we assume a camera speed of 30 frames per sec. for , the Fairbanks video shows Fl.175 traveling its own length in almost twice the number of frames as it takes in the Fox 5 sequence. :-) .

And, don't fergit, as the Pilots For 9/11 Truth video clearly demonstrates:


... that at anywhere near the official collision speed of  598 mph., [ or even at Fox 5's  revealed speed of 540 mph], or even at  "only" 500 mph........

 at that altitude [1000 ft. and below], the plane would have simply broken apart pre-strike due to the forces exerted on it by the 4x denser [than at 35,000 ft.], air mass.

And, from what I understand [as a non-expert in these matters] - even at 296 mph [ i.e the recorded speed of the E. Fairbanks video, assuming 30 frames per sec.], the plane would still not have been able to endure the massive forces acting on it via 4x air density, descent, and turning maneuvers , and would have therefor broken up, long before any attempted building strike.


So, based only on the plane speed issue [i.e. excluding any/all other technical and physical impossibilities shown in either video] :

1]: either the Fox5 sequence is genuine, and the Fairbanks sequence is a fake.


[2]: the Fairbanks sequence is genuine, and the Fox sequence is a fake.


[3]: [ horror of horrors], they are both [bad] fakes.


4] They are both genuine, because you are out of your tiny mind :-) [ get help]

False In One False in All- An Idea For You to Consider ?: 

To close, a legal principle for you to perhaps consider, dear reader:

"False in one , false in all" 

Regards, onebornfree

Saturday, October 24, 2015

The 9/11 Scam For Beginners- Fox 5 Plane Speed = 540 mph!

[Due to lazy research, where I mistakenly used an average 757/767 plane length of 178 ft. to make my original plane speed calculations, as pointed out by "CriticalMass" at Cluesforum , {thankyou,thankyou CM}, this post has been re-edited and updated on 10/28/15, with "new and improved"  plane speed calculations ]


The 9/11 Scam For Beginners: Real World Plane Speeds

Fact: the official strike speed of Fl. 175[2nd plane] into WTC2 was 520 knots, which is 598 mph.

However the maximum speed of  a Boeing 767-200 is stated as being 567 mph. at 35,000 ft [where the air is 1/4 of the density it is at 1000 ft.] :

Meaning that at anywhere near the altitude of 1000 ft. [ the approximate official F. 175 strike altitude on WTC2] , where the air is 4 times denser, an airspeed of anything like 598 mph would be physically impossible for  a  767 jetliner.


As this Pilots For 9/11 Truth video demonstrates:

.... at that speed [598 mph] at that altitude,[1000 ft.],  the plane would have simply broken apart pre-strike due to the larger than designed for forces exerted on it by the 4x denser [than at 35,000 ft.], air mass.

Therefor, any "official" 9/11 video that showed a frame to frame plane image speed of anything like 500+  mph must be fraudulent in some way, right ?

Exhibit A: Original "Live" Network Footage [as archived on line]

So what if a "big time" US network had an original "live"sequence in its official archives on line showing a frame to frame plane speed close to 550 mph?:

Here is the relevant [much shorter] part of the same Fox broadcast, specifically showing the 2nd alleged plane hit [WTC2],  on Youtube:

Wouldn't that [ frame to frame plane speed of close to 550 mph] make  this sequence er, "untrustworthy"?

 [To put it mildly :- ) ]

Here is my evidence that the famous Fox5 live sequence showing Fl. 175's alleged collision with WTC2, as supposedly filmed by a helicopter, shows an impossible plane approach speed [of around 540 mph. ]


In order to calculate frame to frame speed of the plane, we would need to know 3 important facts:

1] Length of plane.

2] the number of frames the plane takes to travel its own length.

3] the number of frames per second of the camera.

Knowing these 3 facts we could then calculate the planes approximate speed/mph. on film.

1]  Plane length- 159 ft.

According to Wikipedia Fl. 175 was 159 ft. long

2] Number of Frames Plane Takes To Travel Own Length?

This was fairly easy to establish via this online frame by frame analysis:

Here are my 2 screen shots from the above site , starting at frame 372, with my red circle circling the nose of Fl.175 as it first enters the screen from right to left:

[ You might need to click on/enlarge this image to clearly see the plane nose I have circled in red]

Then I simply clicked the "next" button at the website to advance the view one frame at a time, until the plane image was fully in view.

 I count 6 frames before the plane image is fully in view at frame 378:

So now we can see that the plane travels its own length, 159 ft. in 6 video frames.

3] Speed of Frames Per Sec For Camera Used?

Now, we need to know the frame speed of the camera in question in order to calculate the plane speed per frame.

According to my sources, there were two frame speeds for video professionals available back in 2001, 15 frames per sec. and 30 frames per sec.

The Fox 5 sequence is apparently at 30 frames per sec.

Plane Speed Per Frame = 26.5 ft.

If the plane travels around 159 feet in 6 frames, then it is traveling at a speed of 26.5 feet per frame. [159 divided by 6= 26.5].

@30 frames Per Second

At an assumed camera speed of 30 frames per sec for a plane 159 ft long, that is 795 ft feet per sec., [26.5 x30]; which is 47,700 feet per minute [795 x 60]; which is 2,862,000 ft per hour. [47,700 x 60].

Fox Plane Speed = 542 mph ?

There are 5,280 ft. per mile, so dividing 2,862,000ft. [i.e the distance the plane would travel in 1 hour, expressed in feet], by 5,280 [the number of feet per mile] gives me a plane speed of around 542 mph.

Now, an airspeed of 542 mph at 1000 ft. altitude is no more technically feasible than is the officially claimed pre-strike speed for Fl. 175 of 598 mph - that speed  has already been demonstrated to be technically impossible in the "Pilot's For 9/11 Truth " video linked to above.

Regards, onebornfree

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Plane Facts About 9/11

Both  plane/ tower "hits" were allegedly by a plane of US airliner shape/dimensions, usually described as being a Boeing 757 or 767. 

The alleged speed of the flight of Fl. 175, immediately prior to its "hit" on WTC2 was supposedly around 587 mph. 

That figure [587 mph approx.] was  presumably computed  by measuring the speed of the passage of the plane image, versus the frame speed per second of the individual videos clearly showing the plane image's passage [from right to left- or left to right, depending], prior to impact. 

For example, from this Fox video, perhaps:



A Plane Fact About Plane Speeds: 

Each tower was 1300 ft. tall. The plane strike on film occurs below 1000 ft.

It was/ is impossible for a 757/67 or similar type jetliner to travel at anything like 587 mph at 1000 ft. and lower.

567 mph. = Maximum Cruising Speed At 35,000 ft.

500+ mph [or thereabouts] is in fact the speed routinely used [for fuel economy purposes] by airliners at their cruising altitude of around 35,000 ft. 

Fact: At 35,000 ft. the air is one fourth the density it is at 1000 ft. and below - meaning that the 4x air resistance encountered by an airliner at 1000 ft. and below is  enough to prevent it from ever traveling through  the far denser air at that official strike speed of 587 mph.  

If a pilot [automatic or real world] tried to fly the plane at that speed at the altitude of 1000 ft. and lower, the plane would quickly break up/lose its wings- they'd be literally torn off by the increased air pressure battering and shaking the aircraft's frame. 

Plane Engines Cannot Handle Extra Air

Furthermore,  the planes engine air intakes are physically unable to handle the increased amount of [denser] air they would encounter at 1000 ft. and below at the alleged speed of 587 mph.

The top, speed of a 757 type airliner at 1000ft and below is around 250 mph, if even that

Plane's Impossible Maneuvers

Also, the plane , regardless of whether it was piloted via remote control or by a real life pilot, would never be able to perform the sharp diving descent and swerve first right, and then left [from the "pilot perspective"] that is clearly seen in the CBS "live" clip of Fl.175's supposed last 16 sec.s . :



A Simple To Reach Conclusion:

As it was/is impossible for an airliner to get anywhere near the officially claimed airspeed of 587 mph at 1000 ft., any allegedly live recorded video that shows a plane image  moving at that approximate speed frame to frame must be a fraud, regardless of source. 

Regards, onebornfree.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Some 9/11 "Predictive Programming Examples

9/11 Predictive Programming?

For many years prior to 2001, the events of 9/11 were seemingly forecast, or alluded to, by the media, in newspapers, magazines, TV shows and movies. There are hundreds of examples of this.

In conspiracy theory circles this phenomena is called "predictive programming".

From Wikipedia [ ]:

"Predictive programming: 

This theory posits that media outlets produce media (generally fictional media such as popular films, television shows, novels, etc.) that include images of events such as terrorist attacks, epidemics, or other natural or man-made disasters with the intent of programming the general population to accept such events as plausible, so that when the government undertakes such operations in the future, the public will be predisposed to believe the operations are actually terrorist actions and not government actions. "

Here are four examples of what is considered 9/11 predictive programming [click on an image to enlarge] :