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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.