9/11 Scams: Real N.Y.C. Images Vs. Fake MSM 9/11 Media Broadcast Footage- Random Examples.

This post is mostly a reference file for some real pre-9/11 photos and videos that I have come across to date.

The only thing to note/compare really here is the superb resolution, clarity and detail of all of these original genuine images, even those  depicting the WTC's construction in black and white, and also, the complete absence of the strange, single or double black lines around  any of the scenery, unlike these two randomly selected stills immediately below from the alleged live 9/11 network footage.[Both image analyses , fig.s 1 & 2 below courtesy of Simon Shack . Click on images to enlarge].

Remember that these examples [Fig.s 1 and 2] of the alleged live network footage of  9/11 were supposedly captured via  network TV cameras where the cameras lens alone routinely cost between $8000 and $20000[!] [ Click on images to enlarge]:                                                          

                                                                     

                                                                              Fig.1

                                         

                                                       Fig. 2  

Above: An analysis of two "stills" taken from original, allegedly "live" network video feeds.[i.e.Typical MSM 9/11 image quality. Click on images to enlarge.]

                         
                                                                    Youtube link to video

Above- Fig. 3 A genuine pre-9/11 home movie. Note the complete lack of double black lines or similar, plus the overall clear resolution of all imagery in this video.



















     
Compare, Compare, Compare:                                                                                                                                                      

Now try and see if you can get anywhere near the same sort of image quality and resolution as captured by this small, handheld video camcorder in a genuine amateur video above, from
any  allegedly "live" 9/11 network video sequence depicting the Twin Towers etc. 

Remember in 2001, a "state of the art" camcorder was a probably a Sony camcorder costing maybe $2000 [ a guess], with nowhere near the capabilities of studio network cameras, where, as I mentioned before, the lens alone on those monsters cost anywhere between $8,000 and $20,000]!  

For example, as well as Figs. [1] and [2] above, see this gif file below from NBC's original "live" feed showing the collapse of WTC 2, : 

Fig. 4: An $8,000 to $20,000 NBC network camera lens in action on 9/11? [gif. made by Simon Shack from the original highest resolution MPEG format version of NBC's 9/11 archives, now re-archived in a lower {flv?}resolution format here]

Fig. 5 Still shot from MSNBC's "Live 911 footage" archive. A  state of the art network camera costing in the region of $20,000 [at least], took this ! This is after 9am on a clear sunny day, and yet it looks more like the break of dawn than anything else, here.

Below: various, random real, pre 9/11 photos [ Click on any image to enlarge it]:

   

                 

                            

               

                              

                                         

                                 

                            

                                     

                                         

                                               

And again , as a reminder, this [below] is just one completely atypical example [i.e. not an aberration] of the image quality from various alleged live network feeds broadcast on 9/11: 

This gif file was  made from an archived, supposedly genuine NBC "live, 9/11 video" sequence. Yeah, right. This  sample of the typical 9/11 MSM broadcast image quality [check for yourself] is so obviously fake its not even funny! [Or, it's funny to me, if you still believe it is actually a gif from genuine real time MSM footage, I suppose :-) ]. 

Study, Study, Study:

If you still believe it and others like it, are genuine, go back through the numerous real photos I have posted here, click on them at random to enlarge, then study them and compare the picture quality when compared with that of this gif or that of the two photos that started this post [Fig.s 1 and 2 ]. 

Conclusion: All of the "live" US MSM broadcast video footage of 9/11, for all channels, [CNN, CBS, ABC,NBC, Fox,], all 102 minutes of it , as now officially archived here, is in fact fake, pre-manufactured [on computer] imagery, not real live footage, as we were, are, and always will be, led to believe. 

Are we "there" yet? 

 Not "There" Yet? : The Sum of All The Evidence:

The poor quality of all of the "live" MSM 9/11 footage compared to regular live broadcasts [don't take my word for it- study the archived footage, closely yourself {officially archived here },  and compare with your own selection of genuine, pre-9/11 imagery] alone does not prove wholesale media fakery.

 Other factors must be seriously considered, such a the remarkably fortuitous timing of various alleged "live" edits and camera "zooms" in and out to capture the alleged live imagery  events of 9/11, or the repeated presence of doubled, or "ghosted" images, and the presence of large black lines around many buildings in numerous "live" original MSM archived sequences. 

Then there is the whole question of imagery [i.e the Verrazano Bridge]seen to be moving in stationary camera sequences, or appearing to be double or triple its actual size relative to other buildings in those sequences.

As an attempt at a "sum of all the evidence" type argument, I will post examples of these further types of proof of media fakery on 9/11,  either here as  updates, or in separate posts in the future.

                                  Regards, onebornfree.

Update 09/03/13: 
See related post on 9/11 MSM broadcast image quality : 

9/11 Scams:The Faked "Live" CNN WTC1 Collapse Footage

The Real Problem with Conspiracy Theories

[Onebornfree commentary: this is a great article by Paul Rosenberg, who writes "The Freeman's Perspective", and who here points out the absurdity of the point of view that says everything in the world is controlled, or controllable.  Variations on this  very same basic "scientific" /mechanistic theme also pollute the fields of economic theory and investing,  plus modern medicine, political science [and lawd knows what else!]

Being so culturally prevalent, this  is an idea/concept/point of view that I frequently run into in my "line of work" . As a personal freedom consultant, I try to help individuals see through this mindset, which I believe is a major obstacle to personal freedom for any individual who believes it. This article is a good start to at least questioning that very damaging mindset and related assumptions. Regards, onebornfree.]

 by Paul Rosenberg

"It seems that applying the tag “conspiracy theory” to something is the new way to get rid of it quickly. Evidently, people have been trained to stay away from anything given that title, assured that they will be embarrassed and ridiculed if they don’t gain some distance.

But, while this association trick is of some interest, it really isn’t our subject here. Our concern is the problem built into conspiracy theories, not how the words are used as a weapon.

I’ll pass up the easy criticism of wild, irrational conspiracy theories. While these criticisms are legitimate, the risk associated with such theories is fairly minor; any serious, independent observer can see through them. The real problem with conspiracy theories is not easy to see – it is implied rather than directly stated. I’ll give it to you in brief, and then explain it more carefully:

The real problem with conspiracy theories is not that they are scary – it’s that they are too comforting.

My concern with conspiracy theories is not whether they are true or false; it is their implication that the world is being controlled. There is a strange comfort in the idea that the world is controllable.

The hidden thought embedded in most discussions of conspiracy theories is this:

The world is being controlled by evil people. So, if we can get rid of them, the world can revert to control by good people, and things will be great again.

This thought is false. The world is not controlled by any group of people – evil or good – and it will not be. The world is a large, chaotic mess. Those groups which do exert some control are merely larger pieces in the global mix.

The worst conspiracy theories take this hidden thought to an extreme, with a thought process that goes something like this:

1. We had a glorious and just past.
2. We lost our glorious days.
3. It must have been someone’s fault. (“It was our own fault” is excluded, since that would require painful reflection and repair.)
4. A plausible theory is inserted here, defining a clear villain or group of villains.
5. Once we get control away from the villains, our glorious past will return.

This formulation is false, for several reasons:

• The world is massively complex, and is simply not suited to control.
• No type of control produces golden ages, and what is controlled suffers damage. (I’ll explain this in future issues of the monthly Freeman’s Perspective letter.)
• Glorious times are created by good people and a tremendous amount of hard work; they don’t come easily or automatically.

This idea, of the world not being controlled, is troubling to most of us. Nonetheless, it seems to be the truth. The good guys don’t control the world and the bad guys don’t control the world. The world is a big, complex mess.

The Guy Who Would Know

I happen to know one of the world’s great intelligence analysts. He has written innumerable classified briefings, over several decades. We see each other at meetings from time to time and chat if we can.

At one of these meetings, we took a few moments to discuss the chaotic actions of intel groups worldwide, which led to a question I had been waiting to ask: Is there anyone who can see the big picture? Anyone with a clear view of what’s really going on?

His answer was unambiguous: “No, Paul, no one really knows.”

So, my friends, if this guy, a super-experienced, high-level intelligence analyst, can’t see what is really going on, and doesn’t know of anyone who can see it – much less being able to control it all – then forget about secret groups intelligently pulling strings world-wide. Such mega-villains do not exist. They make wonderful characters in mystery novels and movies, but they aren’t real.

I fully understand that this can be a troubling thought, but there is every reason to think that it is true, regardless of how it makes us feel.

Yes, there are groups that oppress people and control things – that skim away people’s production and manipulate their lives – but they do this locally, not world-wide. Furthermore, they are not able to control things very completely; there are always people and groups who slip through cracks.

And, it gets worse…

They Are Not Smarter Than You

When we think of people secretly running the world, we may think of them as evil, but we also think of them as highly intelligent. This also is false. And, for most of us, it is doubly scary to think that the guys trying to run the world are not only immoral, but have very mundane minds as well.

The people who have tried to control the world have rarely been geniuses. Even the most successful of them weren’t all that smart. Stalin was ruthless, for sure, but he was not exceptionally bright. Neither was Hitler, neither was Mao, neither were Alexander or the vast majority of Roman Emperors.

Ruthless does not equal smart.

Rulers are called “genius” because armies obeyed them, or because their soldiers had superior weapons and reasons to fight, or because they killed the opponents of a specific cause. But these are not characteristics that can be associated with genius. Real geniuses have never been big on wielding power over others.

To buttress this point, consider this: How many ‘great rulers’ sowed the seeds of their own destruction? (Attacking Russia in autumn… how stupid is that!?) Read serious biographies of the wannabe world controllers; you’ll find that most of them shot themselves in the foot.

Perhaps a few of the central controllers have been quick thinkers, but most of these people didn’t gain their positions by being smart – they gained position by some external advantage, mostly by being born to it, in one way or another.

The Crucial Importance of Structures

Think about the elite of our time: The Bushes, members of the House of Lords, Hillary Clinton, or the students at top Universities who routinely become the leaders of media and government. Then think about the central bankers: Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Schroders and their various sponsors. Then consider this:

Almost all of these people have obtained power via birth, family connections, or some other type of advantage. They are not there solely because of merit.

As for elected officials, it is a big mistake to imagine that they are in their positions due to merit, regardless of the fact that people vote for them. Winning an election is not about virtue; it’s about manipulating crowds. You win an election by scaring people away from your opponent. Beside, everyone knows that politics is incestuous and that almost every politician lies continually; that’s hard to construe as merit.

The elite are not superior, except at remaining ensconced in structures of power. And those structures matter far more than do their occupants.

A New Understanding of the Ruler

So, if ruling types don’t control as much as we thought they did, and if they’re not especially smart, our assumptions about them should change.

Consider things from the ruler’s standpoint. If they are not really in full control and are not super-smart, they would have to think thoughts like the following, at least from time to time:

1. We must preserve the structure or we can lose everything. If the structures of the world failed, the rulers would not be able to rebuild them. The proof of this are the various dark ages; once the old order failed, it stayed dead. New structures eventually rose up, but not the old ones. The ruling elite, if they understand this at all, will be driven to preserve their existing structures.

2. We must maintain an image of being powerful and wise, or at least as being admirable. Knowing that they are not inherently superior, but that they hold superior positions – positions that ultimately rest upon the agreement of the masses – the elite have to carefully maintain some type of elevated status and to make sure that the masses continue to care about that status.

Another human factor, that plays in the elite, as well as it does in anyone else, is simple denial. Because the loss of their structures would ruin them, they find ways to avoid taking such thoughts seriously. (Humans are very good at this.) So, when they say, “No one saw this crisis coming,” they may be telling the truth, at least as far as they know it. Neither they nor anyone in their circles would entertain such thoughts. Likewise, they may not see the next crisis until it hits them.

And, because most of the elite are subject to self-reflection like the rest of us, they have to find ways to discount the masses. Even if this is as small as calling most of their domain “flyover country,” they need to make some sort of distinction between themselves and the people they rule. Otherwise, they would have to face the fact that, being no better than the mechanic in Cornwall, they yet control his existence from cradle to grave."

by Paul Rosenberg FreemansPerspective.com

Behold! Louis Mariani 9/11 Victim, Purple-Haired Punk-Rocker & King of Opera!

Here is an official photo of alleged 9/11 Flight 175 victim Louis Mariani: 

                                                  

                                  So what's going on with Louis' hair? : 

Was Mr Mariani shaved bald, plus he had a badly fitting purple toupee ? 

Was his hair merely shaved off very high on the  side of his face [viewers right] leaving a  "Five- O' Clock shadow" above his left ear, and the rest of his purple [punk rock] hair-do in place? [Nice, going Louis!]

Was  his remaining hair really purple? 

Is that purple mass at  back right even supposed to be his own hair, or that of someone or something else standing behind him? 

Conclusion : If you think this is a real photo of a real person then you and I have some serious differences of opinion, I'd say ! 

This is not a real image of a real person, folks. It is just one of the 1000's of fake 9/11 victim images  manufactured with computer facial imagery morphing software, as exposed by the valiant researchers over at September Clues [see above link]. 

Most likely,the original model for the Mariani image was a former [now deceased] famous professional opera singer known as "Le Roi de L'Operette", [The King of Opera] one   Luis Mariano                                      

See also : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Mariano

https://www.youtube.com/artist/luis-mariano

Original image comparisons courtesy Simon Shack /September Clues : tinyurl.com/911mariani

See also : "Inside Jokes of 9/11 and Our Future" by Stewart Ogilby

Regards, onebornfree

Craig McKee's "Truth and Shadows" Blog: Yet Another Fake 9/11 Photo!

                                     

I see that Mr Craig McKee at the so-called "Truth and Shadows" blog is up to his old tricks- that is, his apparently ongoing policy of posting obviously fake 9/11 photos, such as the one above [proof to follow below].

 Controlled Opposition

But what did I expect from a self-described "9/11 truther" anyway?

After all, the whole aim of the 9/11 "truther" movement is to obfuscate and lead people away from any real 9/11 truth, for as long as possible. 

In other words, I could be wrong on this, but the entire 9/11 "truther" movement [Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Alex Jones, Morgan Reynolds, Richard Hall, Ace Baker, Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "Loose Change" etc. etc.] appears to be nothing more than a controlled opposition, as far as I can see.

 As such McKee's site is chock full of either knowing shills or useful idiot contributors [ e.g. Hybridrogue1, Ruffadam, Adam Syed, Onesliceshort, Senor ElOnce ] all involved in an ongoing self conglatuary, pseudo-intellectual, mutual masturbation fantasy of ongoing total and perpetual self-delusion and denial of the 9/11 imagery fakery that took place during and after those alleged events, and continues to this day, on a massive scale.

McKee: Scam Artist or "Useful Idiot"? 

Meaning, either Mr McKee is "in on it" and a knowing contributor to the ongoing obfuscation himself, or he is simply a schmuck, a"useful idiot". 

Given his revealed bias to allow the individuals named above the right to attack /character assassinate anyone who posts there concerning the issue of imagery fakery [as I tried to do for 6-8 months before being shown the door], I would have to say at this juncture that Mr McKee appears to be a knowing insider whose job is to deliberately mislead- and that that  is also the goal of the nasty little "nest" of above named characters who make up his regular blog contributors, several of whom I am still seriously considering tracking down and  "visiting" in order to determine whether he/she/ they are  real persons, and, if so,  possibly beating the living shit out of all or some of them - [i.e. my version of a short course in internet manners ].

 The Story So Far-The Prior Case of Craig McKee's  Claimed Self-Removing [Fake]Photo

Up until a couple of months ago Craig McKee's "Truth and Shadows" blog had the following image posted on its site in a sidebar, so you saw it  on the right side of the post [regardless of the subject matter of the actual post] every time you loaded the front page, sort of like this:

Just For [More] Fun!

Because, for me, the photo at right is an obvious fraud, for a bit of fun I started badgering him about it, to the point that he eventually removed it from his site.

When I noticed it was gone and questioned him about that, he claimed that effectively it had removed itself! [I kid you not :-)] and that he had nothing to do with it! 

Regardless, I had previously made him aware of the 8-10 other similar photos by linking to an article of my own. So if you wish to explore why I believe that this "award-winning photo " by one "Amy Sancetta" is a blatant fraud, click here for more info.

N.B.: Additional Evidence For The Sancetta Image Being Fake:

For the purposes of this article, [as I really want to draw your attention to the main subject of this post, i.e. the fake photo at the top of this page that Mr McKee currently has posted as a "genuine 9/11 photo"], all that I would add by way of commentary to what you'll find in my other post concerning the Sancetta [fake] photo is below, where I draw your attention to the almost perfect triangle , or chevron, of smoke that sits on top of the building below my red lines and question mark [ Q: does smoke really form in 2 almost perfectly straight lines  at a 90 degree angle, in real life? ]: 

And So, Onward and Upward! [to the main point of this article]:

First [again]   Craig McKee's "Truth and Shadows"  photo:

   

                                              

Photo Source? 

There are at least 2 sources for the still shot McKee used on his blog. Below are gifs, courtesy of Cluesforum.info , summarizing these possible sources. The names  Robert Clark,  Tina Cart,  refer to the original stills or videos from which the shots were extracted and then compared in the gif analysis done at  Cluesforum.info  :

[Here are links to original [or close to] sources from which the above gifs were extracted:  " Robert Clark , Tina Cart, 
[N.B. the very fact that these two photographers allegedly shot the exact same imagery, at the exact same moment in time, as evidenced by the picture perfect overlays achieved, should really be enough of a clue for anyone, even with half their brain tied behind their back, to the fact that these images are fraudulent, but for those of you with largely non-functioning brains, here below is yet more "in your face" evidence as to the blatant fakery of these images.]  
[N.B. 2, Also note the low resolution/definition of the original imagery, as compared to the re-rendered version posted at McKee's blog- see next image below.]

Why The McKee Photo Is Demonstrably Fake -The Beauty of Enhanced, Re- Rendered, Higher Definition, "Authentic" 9/11 Imagery!

So, obviously, the McKee/Truth and Shadows Photo is most likely from one of these two sources [i.e. Cart/ Clark] originally, but even if its not, it does not matter- its still a fake! 

Since the original 9/11 network and "amateur" videos and still photos were made public, in order to constantly reinforce the "reality" of the events of 9/11, the perps have found it necessary to improve the original, extremely poor quality and low resolution of all of that original imagery, [especially since 2007 ], and to constantly bombard the general public with this new improved imagery via its propaganda machine, the mainstream media.   

And so, to this day, the public is, via the usual mainstream media propaganda outlets, more or less continually hit with higher than original resolution "new" 9/11 images , which are in fact nothing more than re-renderings of the original low resolution imagery. The newer higher resolution photos/videos are supposed to convince us all that these photos/videos are real. [Question: why was ALL of the original footage and stills of such low quality? ]

What's nice about re-renderings [i.e. better image  resolution/definition by the perps, so it looks more "convincing" than the original]  is that it actually works against them, as it makes it even easier to spot the blatant fakery of the images, including this one!

  9/11 Video Fakery 101: Sunlight Does Not Lie!

So Is It [Sunlight direction/angle]? :

Or Is It? :

'Nuff Said? 

[Of course I do not expect Mr McKee and the assorted shills, clowns and doofii over at "Truth and Shadows" to ever "get" what's right in their faces- but do you, yet, dear reader?]

Regards, onebornfree. 

9/11 Scams: The Junk-Science of Dr. Judy Wood- Part 1 of 4

[Or, the almost complete lack of adherence to regular scientific methodology displayed by Dr. Judy Wood and all  other accredited "scientists"  currently involved in "serious" 9/11 research.]

[The above photo, used on the cover of Prof. Judy Wood's book "Where Did The Towers Go",  is a proven fraud, a pure, fabricated, 100% digital creation, not  in any way a genuine photograph of a 9/11 event. For 2 more examples of fraudulent photos being used as  "genuine" "evidence" by Dr. Wood and others, in order to "prove" their own 9/11 hypothesis,  see Part 4 of this report].

N.B. This 4 part report is a re-post/ re-edit of a badly written and badly presented article I originally posted here in 2008, that examined Professor Judy Wood's hypothesis that Hurricane Erin had some sort of direct involvement  in the events of 9/11.

Introduction [and Report Overview]

My Intentions/Goals

This article is not intended as a character assassination of either Prof. Wood or her associates, but rather as an expose of the almost complete lack of utilization of a consistent, everyday, "run of the mill" scientific methodology for any of her "research" to date concerning the events of 9/11. 

However, for the discerning reader, this to be demonstrated, consistent, almost total lack of utilization of the scientific methodology by Prof. Wood might, by itself act as a "character assassination" of both her and her various "professional" associates, as it points directly to an complete lack of professionalism on her/their part. But this is unavoidable, in my estimation. Sorry, but that's just "the way the cookie crumbles" in the real world.  

Why Pick On 9/11 Research"Scientists"?

Because they are supposed to know better, that's why! [which makes it fun to do!].

If I raised the same criticisms about a non formally trained 9/11 researcher, they have an easy "out" : they simply don't know any better. 

On the other hand, all scientists are "supposed" to be trained in a very exact methodology which must be adhered to at all times if their "scientific" conclusions are to be at all  credible to you and I,  in the final analysis.

Pure Bunk?

Therefor, if it can be easily demonstrated that Prof. Wood, [or any other "trained scientist"] has steadfastly refused to comply with some of the simple but exacting rules of their very own profession, then it stands to reason that their 9/11 hypothesis is most likely pure "bunk".

I am by no means singling out Prof. Wood here.[Full disclosure: I used to be a "fan" of her work].

 I have previously tried to draw attention to  the exact same lack of application of the scientific methodology to the hypothesis of Richard Hall, another individual involved in 9/11 research who supposedly has a formal, scientific, educational background, but who consistently demonstrates that he has entirely forgotten most of it- assuming he was ever actually taught the fundamental principles of his "trade" in the first place!   

My overall goal is to draw attention to the fact that any/all of the accredited 9/11 researchers with some sort of "official" designation that denotes them as being formally trained in the the scientific methodology are either deliberately , or out of sheer ignorance, entirely ignoring their own training in order to reach their conclusions [or hypothesis, if you prefer] about exactly what happened on 9/11. 

Naming Names

Let me name names, to get this issue of the almost complete lack of employment of a consistent scientific  methodology in their published conclusions about 9/11 out in the open. 

It reads like a  virtual "whose who", or "big 3" of 9/11 researchers, in fact : 

[1] Prof. Judy Wood [+ all associates/promoters of her hypothesis], 

[2] Richard Hall [ + all associates/promoters of his hypothesis],

[3] Prof. Steven Jones,  [ +all associates/promoters of his hypothesis]. 

My Claim: Every one of these three, formally [i.e. University] trained, "scientists" involved in 9/11 "research" is studiously avoiding the application of the scientific methodology in at least one crucial area  of their own research. 

I Said: "At Least One Crucial Area"?, But For Prof. Judy Woods, It Is Not One "Crime" Against Science, But Three!

In the case of Prof. Wood, to be expanded on in this article, [and just as with Richard Hall], I demonstrate that Prof. Wood has not only , like her "scientific" associates, consistently ignored  the required scientific methodology in the exact same way as those associates in that one crucial area  [briefly explored in part 4 of this report], she has also apparently deliberately "misinterpreted" official data in order to push her own agenda, even subsequently altering a particular graph plot at her own site in order to try and hide what the original graph/data showed, and she has, all to conveniently, also entirely ignored  one entire crucial area of meteorological research in order to conveniently reach her conclusion that a hurricane [Erin] was directly involved in the events of 9/11. 

Article Guide/Overview: 

This article is in four separate parts 

 Part [1]: Introduction article guide /overview[you are here!] .

 Part [2]: Dr. Judy Wood  Crime #1":  

Dr. Wood's deliberate [or extremely sloppy- take your pick], entirely unscientific, total misrepresentations  of official data on Hurricane Erin's actual position and movements relative to New York City [NYC] on 9/11, in order  to support her  hypothesis [i.e. that Erin was an artificially controlled event whose energy was in some way being utilized to facilitate the demolition of the WTC complex via something called "Direct Energy Weapon {you know, "D.E.W."}, technology".] 

Part [3]:  Dr. Judy Wood Crime #2":

Dr. Wood's complete [and very convenient] entirely unscientific ignoring of a far larger [than Hurricane Erin] natural phenomena that was present on 9/11 that has a proven, historical, meteorological record for deflecting hurricanes away from the U.S coastline. 

 Part [4]: Dr. Judy Wood Crime #3 [A far more egregious "scientific methodology crime" than either of the first two listed. ]  : 

Dr. Woods [and Dr. Morgan Reynolds, and others] total non -compliance with standard scientific protocol that alway requires the verification of the authenticity of any all "evidence" to be used to formulate a theory of what happened on 9/11. 

In this case, Wood and Reynolds have consistently [to this day, and just like other 9/11 research"scientists"Richard Hall, and Steven Jones, previously mentioned],  completely ignored the standard scientific procedural requirement  to fully verify the authenticity of any and all video and/or still photographic imagery  that they have studied/used to reach their so-called "scientific" conclusions to date. 

***************************************************

End of part 1.  

Part 2 of "9/11 Scams: The Junk-Science of Dr. Judy Wood"