Monday, January 28, 2013

9/11 Video Fakery: The Latest [2012] In Publicly Available Video Fakery Technology

Below is a good example of the current "state of the art" video compositing software and what it can do:

Here is a more tongue in cheek example of the same type of software out there and what it can do:

Here is an example of what could be "realistically" faked on computers in 1995 : etc.

Here [ at 2mins. 15 secs. into the clip] is the Empire State building destruction scene from the movie "Independence Day" [1996]:

...and last, but not least, here is an example of what could be "realistically" faked on computers circa Sept. 11th. 2001:

Related post

Regards, onebornfree.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

9/11 Video Fakery: So Exactly Where Did Fl.175 Hit WTC2 ?

........and how come  various selected "authentic" 9/11 videos, in complete contradiction to one another, show Fl.175 either flying levelly, diving, or actually rising before impact? 

First, Let's Take A Look At The Question of Fl. 175's Alleged  Point of Entry Into WTC2 :

Here below are 3 side by side comparisons of the alleged impact point of Fl.175. All three show a different entry point, when compared to one another. They all contradict one another. How is this possible? :

Fig. 1
[The image on the above far left is from the original Fox5 footage, broadcast "live" on 9/11. The center image is from the CNN, on the evening of 9/11, broadcast of the alleged "amateur" footage by one "Michael Herzakhani". The right hand still is from the "Park Foreman" sequence.]

And  Then, After You've Satisfactorily"Explained" All Of That To Yourself :-) : 

 Was Fl.175 Flying Level During Its Last 7 Seconds, Or Did It Dive Downwards Before Leveling Out? :

Image Fig. 2   gif imagery by Simon Shack 


Left side of gif image is from the "Brooklyn Bridge AL-QAEDA shot" showing a flat approach for Fl.175. 

 Right side  of gif image is taken from the original CBS Fl. 175 "Divebomber" sequence [part of a "live" broadcast  on 9/11] .

Fig. 3   gif imagery by Simon Shack 

So which was it? You tell me- my conclusion is that all of the complete original sequences  from which these various stills and gif files were made were all 100% digital fakes, pre-manufactured on computers, prior to 9/11- but then, I'm a "nutjob" apparently :-) 

Regards, onebornfree.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

9/11 Video Fakery:Snoop Dogg vs.The Naudet Bros. vs. "Steve Vigilante"

[This post was inspired by the contributions of "BrianV", "Equinox", and "Nonhocapito" , at ]

Snoop Dogg:

In 1995 the rap artist Snoop Dogg  released a song"NewYork New York " with an accompanying  promotional video. 

The video contained scenes with giant images of Snoop Dogg and other group members superimposed on computer simulated scenes of Manhattan.

 For example, consider these screenshots from that video:

Please note the lack of detail;  the tell-tale lack of definition/resolution, of the various building facades depicted. Obviously, those scenes of downtown Manhattan in that video are simulations, made on computers, using the latest publicly available software for that time.
Again, that was in 1995!

And then 6 years later....... : 

The Naudet Brothers-2001

Shortly after the alleged "terrorist attacks" of Sept. 11th, 2001, in downtown Manhattan, N.Y., U.S.A., a mysterious movie making team known as the Naudet Brothers gained brief international fame when they released a movie [broadcast on T.V.] that they claimed to have filmed in realtime in downtown Manhattan on the morning of 9/11.

 Theirs is  one of the few 9/11 movies that allegedly captured the impact of AA Fl.11 into the North tower [WTC1] - the vast majority of 9/11 movies depicting planes depict Fl. 175 flying into the South Tower [WTC2] . 

To date, there have been many  different versions of the Naudet Bros.  9/11 movie released, all with slight differences [which I am not an expert on].  

However, according to 9/11 researcher "Hoi Polloi" the apparent original version of Naudet Brothers movie can be seen/downloaded here:

Last But Not Least: The 2010 Steve Vigilante "Genuine" 9/11 Movie

Below is a screenshot from this "new" movie [Credit : Simon Shack + "Equinox"]:

Curiously, [or maybe not :-) ] almost the exact same viewpoint can be seen in the 2001 original Naudet Bros. footage, below [and also in the 2nd Snoop Dogg screen-shot at the start of this post, which bears an overall similarity more to the Naudet screen shot than to the Vigilante screen shot, especially definition/resolution-wise].   

 Naudet/Vigilante Differences? 

Notice how the Vigilante screen shot  has far more definition than the original Naudet sequence screen shot, [ or than the Snoop Dogg screen shot, for that matter], as seen , for example, in the brick work above the "coffee shop" indicated via the arrow in the Vigilante still, and the question mark in the Naudet still below it. 

Re-Rendered Footage To [Mentally] Reinforce The 9/11 Myth

It appears obvious to me that the newer Vigilante sequence is nothing more than a higher resolution re-rendering of the Naudet [and possibly Snoop Dogg] sequence, that is, a re-rendering, from a slightly different angle [easy to do on a computer], in order to  give more detail and to therefor appear more authentic to the naive, ignorant and casual viewer, and to attempt to once again reinforce the fiction that the Naudet's film,  [or any/all of the rest of the alleged original MSM or "amateur" footage], is genuine [when it is not]. 

       And Where Did That Red Canopy Come From? 

And yes, I'm fully aware that the Vigilante  example appears to be from a slightly later , post Fl. 175/WTC2 impact time-point, but did that red canopy above the 4 men in the lower right hand corner of the Vigilante screen-shot running the entire length of the red building above them in the picture, which is not seen in the Naudet screen shot, somehow get put up in it's entirety between the first and second tower strikes? Hmmm?

Red Versus White Building Facades:

Notice too how the building facade color is very different, as demonstrated in the side by side comparison of the Naudet still [left]  and the Vigilante still [right] shown below.[And no, red brick buildings do not magically turn  white, or grey, in direct sunlight.]

  3 Questions You Might Consider: 

Q1] It is worth remembering that the Naudet Bros. are alleged professional film-makers - do you really believe that they would not have had professional camera equipment in 2001 fully capable of achieving the exact same resolution, definition, and detail as is now magically revealed in the  newer [2010] Vigilante sequence?  

 This exact same point applies to  absolutely all of the original so-called"live" MSM footage, all of which has appalling lack of resolution and detail, regardless of network- all allegedly "achieved" with network cameras costing in excess of $200,000 [my guess]  per camera. 

Q1b.] So why does all of the original network footage display such appalling lack of detail and resolution? 

For example, here is a screen-shot from the original "live" CBS 9/11 broadcasts [N.B. this still is from the official higher resolution archives , when they were all still being archived in the higher resolution MPEG3 file form. From sometime in 2008 all of those 9/11 archived files were converted to a lower resolution file-save format.]: 

[Don't take my word on this lack of detail in all original 9/11 "live" footage , check the original MSM "live" 9/11 footage  against other 2001 and prior, none-9/11 related live network footage or photo stills for yourself.]

Another Resolution/ Definition Comparison - Genuine Pre- 9/11 Real Imagery Versus Typical 9/11 Imagery:

Q2] Which of these movies and extracted screen shots [i.e. Snoop Dogg, Naudet, Vigilante]  is authentic to you, and why exactly? 

   Q3] Why can't  all 3 be fake movies, in your opinion ? 

      Regards, onebornfree

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Onebornfree/Jim Fetzer Radio Show Interview No. 2

On December 28th, 2012, I was a guest on Dr. Jim Fetzer's "Real Deal" radio show [actually a podcast] for the second time, again to discuss the Richard Hall 9/11 holographic plane image theory, after I had previously emailed Dr. Fetzer a link to my 4 part analysis of the Hall hypothesis.  

My Hall analysis was largely inspired by my first interview by Dr. Fetzer where I had tried to rationally discuss problems with the Hall hypothesis with him, only to be met with derision and "pooh-poohing" by Dr. Fetzer, sad to say. [On the 2nd interview he was a lot more respectful, to his credit].

The  2nd. Fetzer/Onebornfree "Real Deal" radio interview can be heard here. My first appearance on "The Real Deal" can be heard here. 

My Reason for Appearing On Dr. Fetzer's Radio Show? 

My reason,  as  also stated in the comments section for the interview, where listeners to the show can post  their own comments : 

"Just in case any of you are not getting the "big picture" point of my Richard Hall critique under discussion in my interview with Jim Fetzer here, it is simply that according to my understanding of the scientific methodology [as represented by statement 2 in my interview], and regardless of whether you the listener/reader [at this time] believe that the 2 data sets and the 20+ videos he uses to formulate his hypothesis are real, or fake, the fact of the matter is that Mr Hall made no attempt to verify [ independently of each other] the authenticity of those videos and data sets, but has instead pre-assumed their authenticity, then used one form of assumed genuine evidence to "prove" that other types of evidence were "authentic".

My point being that his pre-bias towards the authenticity of the "evidence" he used is wholly unscientific, methodologically speaking.

Furthermore , to the degree that profs Jones and Wood [ or other "scientists"]  have relied on video and photographic "evidence" to formulate their own hypothesis' , they are as equally guilty of entirely ignoring the scientific methodology in order to reach their conclusions to date.

The question is, why? Are they all paid disinformation agents, or, are they simply so culturally brainwashed [via government indoctrination/school systems] that they are all entirely unable to even think of questioning the authenticity of "evidence" either from the media, or from the government itself?

Regards, onebornfree

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Is The "Truth and Shadows" Blog Just Another Shill/Perp. Site?

[onebornfree commentary: On Jan13 th.  2013, Craig Mckee the alleged owner/writer of the conspiracy blog "Truth and Shadows" banned me from posting further comments after a {roughly} 6 month time period there. However, he did not post my last comment to him, in which I suggested that either he was a willing participant in a "limited hangout" cover up of 9/11 and other recent psy-ops and the importance of both wholesale mainstream media video fakery and willing actors in all of these modern alleged events, if not earlier ones that pre-date the internet age;  after all, McKee apparently has pre-existing mainstream media connections...  or, that his  regular forum participants {a sorry bunch of clowns indeed} , most likely were, given the consistent {i.e day in ,day out} overtly nasty responses to my own, initially very polite , comments there. 

My  banning there occurred  in this thread. If you read my published comments there you can perhaps get a better idea of what was going on, but my last post {unpublished by McKee , published in it's entirety below}, gives a pretty good summation of  the story to date, so there is probably no need to read my earlier posted comments- unless you are a glutton for punishment :-) . Regards, onebornfree]. 


[Update 05-20-13 related post :" Craig McKee's "Truth and Shadows" Blog: Yet Another Fake 9/11 Photo!"]

"@ Craig McKee :

To sum up, where are we? I have posted comments/assertions concerning media fakery for the [roughly] 6 months I have posted here. Very early on my posts attracted regular insults and character assassinations from [at least] 4 of your regular posters here.

All of these persons [assuming they are not bots- which may well be the case] were subsequently informed that I would no longer respond to their err... "observations" . For around 4-5 months I have kept my word, and, while continuing to post my assertions, have [mostly] studiously ignored their idiotic "comments" [apart from various baiting "asides" aimed at them while commenting to others, such as yourself].

On the sniveling, whining demands of aforementioned idiotii [e.g OSS, HB1, AR,]  you now wish to try to compel me to give up my freedom of choice to interact with whom I want to here, when I want to, and to try to compel me  to to interact with these proven, on record, lying scumbags.

As I said before, I do not go back on my word, for you, nor for anyone else.

The very fact that you would ask someone to go back on their word indicates to me that you have no problem with doing that yourself [going back on _your_ word] , which means that we have very "different" [to put it kindly] personal moralities.

Assuming you do simply have a "different" personal morality from myself [and you are not  just a hypocrite , just a person whose word cannot be trusted because you are willing to go back on it, just as you  apparently believe I should],  then from my point of view, why on earth would I trust you to judge "what’s reasonable and respectful" , and give up my freedom of choice to respond to who I want, when I want to [a freedom of choice which all other posters currently enjoy here],  and instead put that choice in your hands ?

This lack of trust of you on my part is further compounded by the fact that in another comment in this thread you actually thank the lying bag of $hit HB1 for his many "contributions" here. You have got to be kidding me!

If this does not graphically demonstrate an extreme bias on your own part towards this particular self-aggrandising, self-important, pseudo-intellectual, pseudo -scientific, pompous, prevaricating, sycophantic lying bag of $hit, I don't what does!

 And you expect me to actually interact with him/it  here, based on his/its pretended short term, suck-up sycophantic politeness, according to _your_  ever-changeable standards of  "what’s reasonable and respectful" ?

And pigs might fly!

The only interaction I might seriously consider in the future with that particular lowlife vermin would perhaps be  "up close and personal" , with my trusty old Mag. 44 [and there would not be any singing or guitar accompaniment on my part either :

Youtube music link 

, _not_ on an internet forum loosely moderated by a person already demonstrably pre-biased towards this very same entities alleged "many valuable contributions",  who has historically had free reign to insult whomever, whenever he /it chooses, on a daily, if not hourly basis, fer crying out loud!

Mr McKee, either you are an extremely naive individual, or this blog is all part of the plan and just another 9/11 and similar events "honeypot" designed to attract and further distract/confuse.   Thus we have the ongoing spectacle of two certifiable idiots [or deliberate disinfo agents in league],  eternally arguing/bickering over whether the wholly fake  MSM and amateur tower collapse videos ultimately "prove" that nano-thermite,D.E.W. or thermonuclear devices were used to destroy the WTC complex.

Contrary to your  earlier statement : "I firmly believe the media are complicit, and I think most people in the Truth movement do also." , I'd say that nothing could be further from the truth.

Fuck the "truth movement", it is horseshit, _all_ of it. The "truth movement" is nothing more than a controlled opposition  firmly dedicated to obscuring the truth of  _total_media complicity, whether it be for 9/11, Sandy Hook, Aurora or elsewhere.

If naive, then you are apparently unaware that [for example] the entire 9/11 "Truth Movement"  is, as I stated, an entirely controlled opposition dedicated to the complete removal, everywhere on the internet and elsewhere, of any serious discussion of wholly faked MSM videos on 9/11. This subject/line of questioning [ total media fakery] is simply verboten within this alleged "truth movement".

As such, the primary goal of the 9/11 "Truth Movement" [i.e. the controlled opposition], is to fully protect/reinforce the integrity/"truthfulness" of the state's primary source of  its own propaganda [i.e lies] -  the MSM [TV and newspapers/ magazines]. It must protect the believability of the MSM at all costs- and that is exactly what it is doing, via its representatives both here and elsewhere.

This controlled opposition consists of [to name just a few of its leaders] : the "Loose Change" crowd and associated, Alex Jones, Steven Jones, Judy Wood, David Ray Griffin, Jesse Ventura, Morgan Reynold's , Richard Hall and Pilot's for Truth,  and all of their many acolytes/sycophants [including those here].

Each of these named individuals is engaged in a full frontal, take no prisoners, attack  on anyone  seriously questioning the authenticity of the original MSM 9/11 broadcasts, and by extension, the authenticity of  both the  4 alleged plane flights, and of all of the alleged "live" building collapse sequences and still photos.

Likewise, the goal for  each of the sorry excuses for human beings [if they are not bots] who frequent this blog, and with who I have completely  refused to interact with, [aside from the occasional retort/insult],  is also most likely to deliberately [i.e. with forethought and malice] remove the entire question of wholesale MSM fakery on 9/11, and of fake plane and tower collapse imagery etc. from _your_ blogsite.

And it looks like they may well have been successful- aided and abetted by _you_.[ My most hearty congratulations  :-) ]

If not the intentional goal of these posters, then they are all simply too dumb/stupid to understand that they did not/do not have to read _any_ of my comments [let alone reply to them], as I do not have to read or reply to any of their psuedo- scientific "expert" horse$hit, and that they are not somehow entitled to only read points of view here entirely like their own, nor do they have a "right" to demand "a debate" from any person that they have continually, from day one , demeaned [again with, I might add, your own full approval].

Furthermore, if that is the case [i.e these posters are just plain stoopid] - after all, you have to pretty dim to seriously embrace their hilarious "kinetic energy" "plane into building like  knife through butter" hypothesis"-  then why the hell would I want to waste my precious time debating any of these clowns?  When I think back, the only two [or three?] decent conversations  I've had on this site over the last 6 months have been with yourself and "Dennis" [thank you, and thank you Dennis]. Every one else here has completely failed my own  standards for discussion [which really are not that high].

Failing your banning of me immediately for being straight with you here , I see 2 choices for me:

1] I am allowed to continue to make subject appropriate assertions about video fakery and related and to freely respond to whomever I choose to, _when_ I chose to. [i.e. the same rules that presently  apply to everyone else here] ,

2] I choose to sink to the level of the lowest common denominator here [i.e. HB1] and merely post insults and retorts [ assertions]  at whomever I like, whenever the mood takes me [which I envision, would not be too often],  and when that novelty wore off I simply just ride off into the sunset, seeking less obviously biased venues to post to.

No regards, onebornfree.

P.S. the self- erasing from your site [or so you claim] , faked, award winning, [isn't that enough of a clue to its falsity for you?]  Amy Sancetta WTC2 collapse photo that until recently graced your front page, now has 10 willing imitators [up 2 more from last time I brought this to your attention] ! That is, now there are 3 videographers, and 7 photographers all claiming to have occupied a similar location -all of them being so prescient so as to click their cameras within milliseconds of each other, or to have started their video cameras and performed miraculous zoom-ins right on cue. I, of course, look forward to many more additions to these 10 astounding, heroic photographers over the coming months/years! :

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

EVERY Pixel Of This Plane Flight Video Was Artificially Created!

[full link:  ]

Many thanks to clues info forum researcher "Nonhocapito" for bringing this video to my attention. 

To directly quote Nonhocapito: 

"Everything is computer-generated in this video. The author labels this "very dangerous software in the wrong hands", but it is a coy comment. We know (and he knows) this has been "in the wrong hands" for quite a long time. [obf's emphasis] The only difference is that such a level is now available to anyone, or at least to anyone willing to put enough knowledge, time and money into it. 

On one hand, this could almost be good news, in the sense that with time a more compelling perception of the real depths of fakery could reach a wider public (at least the one educated in computer technology and video techniques). On the other, it can be discouraging to think how difficult it is becoming to pinpoint rendering flaws."

The creator of this video " The Faking Hoaxer" says

A small test using new software. Nothing here is real apart from the sound. My god, very dangerous software in the wrong/right hands.  I think the sound makes it more real than it isn't." 

So the question remains, dear reader, do you really believe that this type of software [perhaps not as sophisticated but good enough] was not available to the military and government in 2001? 

regards, onebornfree.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

10 Real 9/11 WTC2 Collapse Photos Or.....?

To update my original 11/13/12 post titled"4 Real 9/11 WTC2 Collapse Photos- Or..?", intrepid researcher/archiver "Equinox" has now revealed that we now are now up to a total of at least 10, entirely contradictory versions of the award winning [fake] Amy Sancetta  shot [Sancetta's is the bottom left pic in the 3rd screen shot below] of the WTC2 top allegedly tilting on collapse initiation. 

That is, we are supposed to believe that there were  [now] 7 heroic photographers, and 3 heroic videographers, all standing in the same location, and they all knew exactly when to focus on WTC2 because it was about to collapse? 

Heh! I am looking forward to many more additions to my fake 9/11 WTC2 collapse photo collection! Keep up the great work Equinox!

Regards, onebornfree.

    pic 1
       Pic 2                          
     Pic 3.

Brian Kiederling

Alfie Alvarado

September 2001, ZDF History Dokumentation (un known shooter) 

Luigi Cazzaniga 

2002 documentary "In Memoriam: New York City 9/11/01. Unnown shot.

Ben Riesman

Thomas Nilsson

Gulnara Samoilova

Amy Sancetta

Barry Weiss

N.B. Some More Examples of the Exact Same, Strangely Coincidental, Multi-Cameraperson  Phenomena: 

Below is another clear example of multiple photographers who were all apparently shooting from almost the exact same angle on 9/11, this time - Robert Clarke, Tina Cart, Wolfgang Staehle, CBS , and the magical Naudet Brothers [heroically shooting from both sides of the river].



So here we have 5- 9/11 shots, all apparently [and mysteriously] taken from the exact same location!  [Although the Naudet shot was admittedly "taken" some time after the others.] 

  Hmmmm..... heroic indeed!: