by simonshack

from YouTube Website

 

Part 1

 

The 9/11 TV hoax is now clearly exposed: The entire Manhattan scenery was composed with digital imagery aimed at faking "hijacked aircrafts" hitting the Twin Towers.

 

This analysis demonstrates how the TV footage was also used to concoct "amateur videos" endorsed by individuals who may have participated in the actual image doctoring.

 

 

 

 

Part 2

 

If someone asks you to see a video of the WTC exploding with no plane in it, here's your best choice.

The Naudet footage is maybe the most diffused of all the 9/11 images so there is no possible question in regard to its "authenticity" - so to speak.... as it is forged.

My analysis here has consisted - as usual - in slowing down the video, check it frame by frame and occasionally crop (enlarge) some shots to view the fine details. (As ever, I have of course NOT altered one single pixel of the material ). I wasn't able to perform this analysis earlier as the 4 versions I had of this famous footage were not as good resolution as this 5th version I recently found.

The graphic object diving into the tower appears to be transparent: I call it 'THE GLASS PLANE'. It really is a crass graphic insertion. No video compression will make a block of pixels change color entirely depending on the background it is cast against.

 

But more, much more importantly:
 


MAIN EVIDENCE OF MISSING AIRPLANE

We may observe that the visible (i.e. not covered by 1st explosion dust) right side of the tower remains intact until 6 seconds after impact. Indeed, we may see 30% of the (right-hand) wall still INTACT for as long as 5 SECONDS after impact. At the 6 seconds mark we see the ignition of the shape charges which eventually rip open the wide plane-shaped hole we all remember.

 

As the explosive charges only manage to open a 130 ft-wide gash, a problem arises for the perpetrators: a Boeing 767's wingspan is 156 feet. So, to fix this problem, the far right tip of the gash (representing 'plane's wingtip') gets penciled in digitally on the video to reach the approx 160 feet gash-width required to 'sell' the idea of a Boeing 767 melting entirely into WTC 1. (NOTE TO SKEPTICS: No, that black gash appearing suddenly is NO SMOKE - it appears too quickly and develops in opposite wind direction).

The inescapable conclusion is that NO LARGE PASSENGER JET (if anything at all - yet a missile's still likely) crashed into the WTC1 or - for that matter - WTC2 (see SEPTEMBER 11 CLUES).

On a final note, if this most publicized and widespread 9/11 video has been THIS sloppily forged, there probably were whistleblowers within the forgery crew - or else that crew was quite simply an incompetent bunch.

 

 

 

 

Part 3

 

THIS IS A VIDEO ANALYSIS of 4 so-called "AMATEUR" shots of "flight 175" hitting WTC2 on 9/11.

THE SHOTS ARE CREDITED TO :

1 : Evan Fairbanks
2 : Luc Courchesne
3 : Michael Hezarkhani
4 : Tina Cart


MOST RELEVANT POINTS TO FOCUS ON IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THIS VIDEO

  • SHOT 1: Fairbanks' video has many oddities. The first is that the airplane melts into the tower with NOTHING - not even the aft assembly - BREAKING OFF. The second (impossible reflection in car windshield) simply establishes the complete
    ineptitude of the authors of this forgery.
     

  • SHOTS 2 & 3: Both these shots show, on 'plane' impact, two explosions on the tower (over and under right wingtip). If these are not shape charges planted in the tower, WHAT are they ?
     

  • SHOT 4: The stripes on the World Trade Centers are extremely bright - even though they are in shade. This ALONE exposes this shot as a forgery. Not ? If you should disagree, please explain.


ADDENDUM


This refined version of 911 AMATEUR part3 was - ironically - inspired by the so-called "debunkers" of my research.

As it became clear that the surface which apparently "reflects" Evan Fairbanks' "airplane" is indeed a car windscreen, we have the ultimate proof Evan's shot is 100% fake. That "reflection" was a silly idea by the inept creator of this forgery who most likely was thinking of his fishing days at the lake where trees are mirrored upside down in the water.

The ineptitude of the "911 video forgery team" is thus established. It may be difficult to take in that such incompetence could go unnoticed in such a well-funded military operation - but this is what we have and what emerges from the close scrutiny of their wretched false-flag operation.

You will find folks over the internet who love to believe in the authenticity of the windscreen reflection. At the end of the day YOU decide - or even test for yourself - if such a crisp, undistorted reflection from behind a car can be real.

 

THE PROOF OF VIDEO MANIPULATION OF THE OFFICIAL 9/11 FOOTAGE IS NOW FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.

ANY SINCERE TRUTH-SEEKER SHOULD KEEP THIS IN MIND AND REALIZE THIS IS THE MOST SOLID PROOF WE ARE LEFT WITH TO EXPOSE THE PERPETRATORS OF THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS TV HOAX EVER PLAYED UPON MANKIND.


In my honest opinion, the plane/no plane debate is now over.

 

Let's move on and see how this evidence can be brought to a court of law.
 


 

Return to The 9-11 Events