ABC's Magic "Spinning Towers"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEmVPCRDidk

[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:


Conclusions:

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?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P9k7Et4zUk

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

Regards, onebornfreeatyahoodotcom

Onebornfree On Jason Herb's "Faux Capitalist" Radio Show 11/17/13

On November 17th I appeared for a full 2 hours on Jason Herb's "Faux Capitalist" radio show, to discuss my somewhat controversial views on the events of 9/11. You can listen to the archived show here:Faux Capitalist Radio Show Archive [with no ads or audio breaks]

Links to some of the various topics covered in my discussion with Jason:

Item: My last appearance [09/27/13] on Jim Fetzer's "Real Deal" radio show, and my resultant blog post[which Mr Fetzer did not take kindly to :-) ]

Item: Faked WTC1 live collapse footage with miracle CNN camera zooms/edits.

Item: Alleged Fl.175 passenger victim Louis Mariani

Item: 9/11's Faked Victims ["Vicsims"]

Item: The extremely low resolution of all of the original "live" MSM camera footage. 

Item: Noam Chomsky article on US University "brainwashing" of media TV anchor persons etc.. 

Regards, onebornfree.

More about "Onebornfree"  :

"Onebornfree", or "O.B.F".  is the generic, 15+ year online business name for my internet persona and various entrepreneurial activities]:

 In no particular order, I am an alternative psychologist and alternative health/fitness consultant ,

a Personal Freedom Consultant,

 a Financial Safety Consultant,

and a  musician [singer/guitarist, mostly blues/jazz stylings] and published songwriter.


See also: Onebornfree's  Mythbusters and Freedom Network blog[various articles]   

"Onebornfree" Radio interviews [ About 9/11]: 

Jim Fetzer "Real Deal" interview 09/27/13 

Jim Fetzer "Real Deal" interview  12/28/12  [discussing Richard Halls holographic plane image theory plus the scientific investigation methodology in relation to 9/11 investigations] 

Jim Fetzer "Real Deal" interview 09/05/12  

Other [non- J. Fetzer ] radio show appearances on 9/11 and related : 

Jason Herb's "Faux Captalist" Radio Show 11/17/13

 John Friends Realist Report 10/30/13

AbIrato/Fakeologist Radio Show[1] 

AbIrato/Fakeologist[2]

AbIratoFakeologist[3]

Austrian Economic theory and related: 

Faux Capitalist Radio Show 09/15/13 [ w/ host Jason Erb] : 

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 www.SeptemberClues.info ]

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: http://septemberclues.info/naudet/

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

In 2010 , yet another mysterious 9/11 move surfaced, by one "Steve Vigilante" [ great name "Steve" :-) ].

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

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