Spark Of Life Media

November 25, 2008

9/11 – SIMCITY 2001 Virtual Reality.

TV’s 9/11 simulated lanscapes of Manhattan were necessary to control all aspects of the real-life events unfolding – and not only the ‘planecrash’ scenes. The ‘explosive-rigged towers’ might have popped here and there and that would not have been good for TV viewers to see. The moving backgrounds/foregrounds, etc… are only a part of the many tell-tale signs of the manipulations going on. One may wish to focus only on the most blatant proof of video doctoring and just go with an Occam’s razor exposĂ©. After all, the planecrash shots are by now ALL proven fakes. The layering issue may not be as blatant or as easily grasped as the various color schemes, maskings and swiveling choppers with static backdrops – but it certainly merits due attention. Let me provide a few samples – judge for yourself…


The two shots below are from FOX and NBC. Before even thinking ‘perspectives’, one has to keep in mind these are two rival TV Networks. What odds for them to have such similar vantage points ?

The next two shots are from FOX and ABC. Again, before even thinking ‘perspectives’, one has to keep in mind these are two rival TV Networks. What odds for them to have such similar vantage points ?

The next two frames are from ABC during the 1st tower collapse – only seconds apart (the entire backdrop is seen moving pretty swiftly on video, laterally AND vertically).

The next two shots are courtesy of the BBC, broadcast just as you see them in the frame below : two videos side by side: one yellow and the other black/white… Note the Verrazzano bridge in the background, considerably different in size and position – at the same moment in time – and hardly from very diverse camera angles…

The CNN broadcasts – which featured no helicopter shots (mostly only Aaron Brown reporting from a ‘rooftop’) – didn’t show us the Jersey shore backdrop at all ! This was probably a ‘wise’ idea as it could have provided a static basis of comparison which might have exposed the FOX/NBC/ABC ‘chopper’ shots and their various perspective problems.

Below, Simon compares a (low-res) TOURIST PICTURE with a CNN shot
It is unlikely that any difference in vantage point (height) would account for the Jersey shore to disappear completely on CNN. Judge by yourself.

Let us keep focused on what, IMHO, the main questions of this debate should be :
(1) : “Are the 9/11 live broadcasts otherwise normal footage with animation planes added on top”

(2) : “Are the 9/11 live broadcasts for the most part composed with digital renderings of the landscape”

Simon’s reasoning for ruling out hypothesis (1) is :

– no satisfactory explanation for the various ‘pastel’ color schemes. Top range broadcast cameras have ISO standard automatic white balance settings for daylight conditions.

– no satisfactory explanation for the plastic, cartoon-like texture of the landscapes conspicuously evident even in the highest archive resolution footage available.

– no satisfactory explanation for the ‘mask linings’ seen around buildings in a wide range of shots. No explanation for observed black/transparent ghost contours.

– at least 4 newschoppers were allegedly in the air, yet all seem to be hovering roughly in the same area (views almost always from Northern vantage points). The few shots we have (ABC) of a chopper sweepingly circling and filming from South never catches any of the other choppers supposedly hovering in the airspace North of the towers.

– virtually all choppers seen in the 9/11 broadcasts simply zap by at sustained speed from one side of the screen to the other. No newschoppers, to be sure…

– some of the alleged NBC chopper shots have the towers swaying alarmingly, causing TV anchors to wonder aloud if the towers are leaning… That pendulum movement is precisely what gyroscopic cameras are designed to impede.

-some of the alleged ABC chopper shots show the chopper landing gear rotating in front of camera lens while the NY scenery remains perfectly static.

– perspective problems with foregrounds/backgrounds (and disappearing backdrops) not reasonably explainable by cinematic dollyzoom special effects. Newschoppers are supposed to and will film aerial sceneries in normal fashion.

There’s much more one could add to this list of observations, but let’s try an Occam’s razor-style argumentation to rationalize the entire issue :


NBC aerial view of Manhattan

ABC aerial view of Manhattan


CNN rooftop view of Manhattan

In the light of these observations, hypothesis (2) appears to be the most reasonable and logical conclusion :

The 9/11 live broadcasts were composed with digital renderings of the landscape – in all likelyhood by a central command / TV op-centre such as :

Color schemes were tweaked to convey the illusion of ‘diversity’ between (what was meant to represent) the images of 5 major TV networks.

-The NBC TV archive shot is 14 seconds before the 2nd strike.
-The “In Memoriam” shot’s timeline is unknown – but we’ll soon see why it doesn’t matter.

We have 4 boats. Let’s give them names :
A = Ace
B= Bob
C= Cargo
J = Jolly

Now as you can see, the “In Memoriam” shot shows Bob quite a bit further ahead while Cargo and Jolly disappear from view. So far, so good. We may assume the 14 seconds to the 2nd strike are now down to X (?) seconds.

The problem is…we also have the infamous, non-archive, home-recorded NBC shot (which hardly shows anything at all – only a fuzzy streak diving into the tower). But as the exit hole explodes, this is what we observe : Ace – Bob – Cargo & Jolly are all there ! Note their respective positions.

Of particular and crucial interest is that Cargo is in a position where it certainly should be visible in the “Memoriam” shot. But it is not. It’s long gone.

So how did that happen ? Anyone familiar with video (or audio) multitrack editing will know how easily tracks may slip out of synch (with each other) if you’re moving markers on a set timeline. The “In Memoriam” docu was likely a re-edit of old material used on 9/11. They ran the background images ‘faster’ than the foreground images (buildings) – which have also been rotated more than the originals : As a matter of fact, that particular angle of view (slightly more to the left of the towers) was NEVER SEEN on 9/11 and is nowhere to be seen in the NBC archives. All this may seem complex to the layman but unfortunately that is what all this research is about. Blood sweat and tears .

FOXED OUT part2 :
( the “JIM and BOB” comparison towards the end of the video)

If you want to read up on how fake imagery is morphed together, you can do that in the Air Force’s seminal Information Warfare paper by Stein.

The backdrop was removed from some of the 9-11 videos shown on TV. That’s a proven fact. Why was it removed? To hide evidence…

Many of the “boats” and “helicopters” and “birds” and “people” and “helicopter skis” are just art assets that the perps overlaid onto other images. They’re not any different from the monsters running back and forth on screen in a video game.

Many of the 9-11 videos are montages of various elements. It’s the most common type of fakery around. Read “The Commissar Vanishes”. These days, the montage process has even been automated and commercialized.

Notice the weird “wobbling” in this short video clip gif as it pans to the left as the “plane” is seen flying down before disappearing behind the WTC before the feed is switched to a different angle.

Full video show more “wobbling” and “zoom clues”:

– all 5 depict the same moment in time
– all 5 are full-frontal views of the twin towers
– all 5 are set in different sceneries – and vastly different colors
– all 5 are, consequently, shot from 5 different cameras
– all 5 are thus aligned on the same axis, whether they be shot

from helicopters, rooftops or, as some folks want to explain it,
“a much lower vantage point” (Matrix number 1…)

– 4 out of the 5 show a minuscule blob passing between the towers – which is not ‘falling debris’ as stated in the Anthony Lawson/Nick Irving debunking efforts of the first version of Sept Clues. I have shown that the blob is synched to the ‘airplane’ motion.

You may not rate Simon Shack as a serious researcher and He does not want to be wasting anyone’s ‘precious time’. However, as a man of common sense, Simon asks us to use our own judgement to explain to how these 5 shots may have occured in the Real World.

YURI FAKTOROVICH is a russian pilot who purportedly flew by the 9/11 crime scene (North to South) in his little Cessna aircraft.

Grabbing his camera (this is how the official story goes), this is what he shot through his window as he approached Manhattan :

As we crop YURI’s picture, we get this pretty familiar view : a coincidence, of course.
(Note the Verrazzano bridge, always perfectly aligned…)

But our friend YURI also shot 3 more pictures as he drove his little Cessna past the 9/11 crime scene..

Funnily enough, his last picture failed to capture any of the many TV choppers filming the crime scene…Oh wait, maybe your fine eye will FIND ONE !

THE 9/11 ABC broadcast (btw 8:53 and 9:12AM)

ABC’s broadcast starts off with this watercolor view of the towers. Now let’s assume for now these are all REAL images taken from ABC’s Chopper7. All right ?
ABC at 8:53

ABC at 8:54 ( This tripod shot from East is briefly aired a couple of times)

ABC at 8:58 : Chopper 7 catches one of several choppers seen in the 9/11 broadcasts which almost invariably zap by as if they had some more urgent matters to tend to…

ABC at 8:59 : Chopper7 is now proceeding in southwestern direction around the towers ( its gyroscopic camera evidently, shall we say, malfunctioning…)

ABC at 9:00 Chopper 7 is now full west of the WTC : it catches another chopper, perhaps the only slowly hovering chopper that we may find on all the 5 TV networks that morning. Hey, could it be NBC’s Chopper 4 ?..

ABC at 9:01 : Chopper 7 is now south of the towers (still on the western side).

ABC at 9:02 : Now – in less than a minute – Chopper7 is back northwest of the towers (which get locked into position to prepare for the cartoon strike).

At roughly the same time, another camera locks into position (see picture at right) only seconds before the ‘airplane’ strike.

ABC at 9:03 : Airliner animation zaps by and disappears behind towers.

ABC at 9:03+ : Chopper 7’s camera (awkwardly placed between the well-focused ‘legs’ of the chopper) slickly ‘pulls’ the towers into center of picture. No doubt, a camera with many special features…

ABC at 9:05 : Now, chopper 7’s camera pulls off another trick : its gyroscopic system actually compensates for the direction changes of its carrier! One could also applaud the depth of field of the camera which focuses with ease both close-up and distant fields.

ABC at 9:08 : Chopper7 is now back to a (north-westerly) airspace much nearer to the towers than a few minutes ago. Those chopper skids still getting in the way…although in a less annoying manner. The image is darker than ever.

ABC at 9:08 + : Now this is when things start to get interesting : the live TV feed abruptly switches from the dark shot to another bright-green, washed-out image which seems to be from another chopper altogether. Did ABC have not one, but TWO choppers in the air ? This is not a replay – nothing in the broadcast suggests this is meant to be anything else than continuous and unedited live footage.

ABC at 9:09 : After a while, the bright-green shot (from a chopper clearly in another position) switches back again to the darker images of chopper7 … or which is which ? What’s going on ?

ABC at 9:12 : Finally, we are graced with this infamous shot.
Compare it to the colors and brightness of the 1st picture at 8:53…

Please note : Chopper 7 at NO time leaves the western/north-western area of the scenery. How YURI FAKTOROVICH (see previous post in this thread) failed to catch NBC’s Chopper4, ABC’s Chopper7 (or the phantom 2nd ABC chopper) as he flew by in his Cessna is quite a mystery…

Conclusions : the burden of proof lies with those who claim these are authentic images filmed by TV choppers. We now understand more about the 9/11 plan : it was principally based around a media-backed mass illusion. Along a logical line of reasoning, we can reach to a conclusion dictated by plain, deductive common sense : little or no parts of the real-life events were supposed to be aired on television. It was way too great a risk – and a rather silly one to take given the means and technology available. We are looking at computer-generated imagery. By definition, such images are not real – they are false.


The Russian Cessna pilot ‘YURI FAKTOROVICH’, by contrast, offered us some of the best resolution pictures of the crime scene available. If choppers were hovering around the place , they would certainly be visible. But there’s none.
Now let’s have another look at Yuri’s first and last (of 4) pictures :



In my ABC chronology 8:53 – 9:12 (see my previous post) I have showed that ABC’s ‘Chopper7’ hovers southwest of the towers at 9:01 . Chopper7 never leaves the west-northwest-southwest airspace around the towers. If it is 5 miles away – as you say – ‘Chopper7’ should certainly not be hidden by the smoke…

Now, as you must know (if you’ve done your homework as a serious researcher), NBC’s ‘Chopper4’ filmed ‘Flight175’s crash with an almost head-on view of the towers, after which it started drifting westwards too. Here it is at around 9:06. Does it look like a shot taken from 5 miles away ? Note that ‘remarkable’, superfast zoom-in just as that chopper-skid again swishes in front of the camera … ( The shot on the right is the direct continuation of the sequence, just to show that what obscures the camera is indeed the chopper skid…)

NBC at around 9:06

The ‘beauty’ of this research is that we can use our own eyes to make progress towards determining whether what we were shown on Tv on 9/11 was real or not.

Let us check out what happened around the collapse of WTC2.
We will compare a clip from the Camera Planet archives with a clip from NBC.

-Clip at left is from CameraPlanet at the time of the WTC2 collapse :

-Clip at right is a replay from NBC (Matt Lauer’s voiceover goes : “Don’t know if this is the correct tape…”)

Of course, these GIF files Simon is posting here are small : I hope you will take his word for the fact that the chopper seen on CameraPlanet (which takes a Northwestern direction at start of collapse) is not seen at anytime on NBC (on my fullscreen, high-res version).

Now, let’s see who have released these 2 clips :

This is the ‘mission statement’ of the CameraPlanet archive :

“What began as a search for footage for a single film has turned into a world-wide resource for filmmakers, historians, and scientists. The CameraPlanet Archive is the world’s largest single collection of video recorded on and around attacks on the World Trade Center.”

NBC is one of the major US TV networks and as such, I believe, needs no introduction…

So, I ask you : who are you going to call to ask for a clarification : NBC or CameraPlanet ? Both ? Should we wait for Shure aka Jeff Hill to do this for us or are we going to do something about it ?

We are not looking for a BLACK chopper that flies BEHIND the smoke BEFORE the collapse (and disappears thereafter) such as the one you posted :

We are looking for a WHITE chopper that flies IN FRONT of the towers (and well clear of the smoke) AFTER the collapse.

Besides, if we are to apply the wondrous “911 TV footage chromatic standards” to your black chopper, it should turn white if it flew in front of the smoke !…

Chopper2 apparently shot the WTC2 collapse from south. FOX5 apparently aired that shot too :

Here’s what is said in the CBS studio : Over 30seconds after the collapse, JIM SMITH (who apparently is inside Chopper2) reports : “… appears that the top portion of the building has collapsed down to the streets below…”…JIM%20SMITH.aif

Now , yet again, it’s anyone’s guess where Chopper2 might be in these pictures…

Jim Smith is one of at least four TV people who report “…the top portion of the building has collapsed” – sometimes long after it is evident the whole tower has been blown to fine dust.

Something flew out the other side, this is what they were trying to hide.


Blog at