Kevin Ryan: Dulles 9/11 Video Probably Faked

[Lauren Johnson]

[URL="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/05/insiders-look-dulles-911-video.html"]May 30, 2016
[/URL]
Another devastating piece of evidence shooting down the official story if true:

The strongest evidence linking the alleged hijackers to 9/11 was a video said to be from the closed circuit TV (CCTV) system at Dulles International Airport in Washington DC. The video was not made available until the day before the 9/11 Commission Report was released, in 2004, and it helped to pave the way for widespread acceptance of the official account. Since the other evidence against the accused hijackers was dubious and suspiciously convenient for the FBI, which provided it, the Dulles video should be examined closely.Doing so has led some independent 9/11 investigators to conclude that the Dulles video contains "no information to link its images to AA 77." Reasons include that:

1. None of the Dulles airport staff remembered seeing the alleged hijackers at the airport.
   
2. Dulles had over 300 cameras but no footage was released except for portions of this one video (and no video was available from the other airports)
   
3. The alleged Dulles video contains no date, time stamp, or camera identification
   
4. The video was shot at a rate of 30 frames per second (fps), which the investigators said is not typical of CCTV videos
   
5. The video appears to be an edited composite of shots taken from different angles
   

Additionally, it has been noticed that the airport screeners in the Dulles video did not perform their duties according to airport requirements. An attorney representing 9/11 victims' families stated that security agents in the video screened the suspects in ways that were not like those required in Dulles training videos.

Could the video be fraudulent?

Dulles airport security manager Ed Nelson said that the FBI confiscated the actual video from the CCTV system "some time after 10:00 a.m." on 9/11. Nelson wondered how the FBI "knew who the hijackers were out of hundreds of people going through the checkpoints." Two days later it was reported that FBI agents had "examined footage from dozens of cameras at the three airports where the terrorists boarded the aircraft." However, the official account claimed that no such footage existed except for the one video later released as the Dulles CCTV evidence.

Recently, I had an online discussion with a man who managed maintenance of the Dulles CCTV system until mid-2000. His comments shed some light on questions of whether the video is genuine. This was the second of two former employees of Stratesec who made comments on my blog early this year. Stratesec was the security company that had contracts for several of the facilities impacted on 9/11 including Dulles Airport, the WTC, and United Airlines.

Like the first former Stratesec employee who contacted me, Andrew Olson, the Dulles video manager (calling himself only "David C") is now working on contracts for the U.S. Department of Defense. David C's comments on my blog were made from an IP address belonging to the U.S. DOD Network Information Center in Washington, DC, run by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Apparently, David C went from a job at Stratesec to working for a "dot com start-up…just two blocks from the WTC" to working at the DIA where he makes comments defending Stratesec.

That these two former Stratesec employees now serve as military suppliers reflects the fact that Stratesec's leaders also went on to profit from the crimes of 9/11. For example, the company's chief operating office Barry McDaniel started a police-state supply business with a close colleague of Dick Cheney. And Stratesec's chief executive, Wirt D. Walker, went on to run businesses with people who have close ties to U.S. military and intelligence agencies.

David C worked for Stratesec from 1995 to 2000, in the role of Senior Field Engineer Technician for most of that time. He was responsible for operations of security systems, access control systems, badging systems, and CCTV systems installation and management at Dulles airport. He has provided images of documents that support these claims. It's important to note that David C was not operating these systems at the time of 9/11. Management of the Dulles CCTV system had changed from Stratesec to ADT a year before the attacks.

The cameras used in the Dulles CCTV system came from Verint Video Solutions. Coincidentally, Verint cameras were also used at the Pentagon, the WTC and, later, in the London subway system at the time of the July 2007 bombing. It was Verint employee David Brent who reported that he had viewed all the video from over 300 cameras that had recorded the events at Dulles on 9/11.

When David C was asked about the evidence suggesting the Dulles 9/11 video might be altered or fraudulent, he responded with extensive comments, many of which were not specific enough to be useful. With regard to the five reasons listed above, the most important of David C's answers relate to reasons 3 and 4.

1. Why was there no timestamp on the video? David C's answer: Dulles used a state-of-the-art Loronix video software system. The system recorded date and time information, which could not be altered. But the video could be exported without the timestamp showing. This was done in some cases where the timestamp obscured some of what was taking place.
   

1. How could the video be shot at 30 fps when typical security video is at 1 to 4 fps? David C's answer:The state-of-the-art Loronix recording software allowed for "real time" (30 fps) video to be recorded and stored for up to two weeks.
   

The use of Loronix video software at Dulles was confirmed in a 1998 paper (pdf) from the University of Southampton. The paper states that, with the Loronix system, "Each video clip is fingerprinted through a mathematical algorithm during the video capture process. The fingerprint becomes part of the clip and is used by the playback software to verify the video has not been altered." Therefore, although the date and time stamp are not necessarily present, the Dulles video file can be confirmed to be genuine and unaltered if one has access to the Loronix software program in which to view it. The video can be downloaded herealthough it is not in the original format.

It's interesting that the video did not appear as publicly available evidence until 2004, more than a year after the Dulles system was upgraded in a way that allowed the video files to be accessed remotely. Until the video fingerprint is confirmed independently, the question of whether the video genuinely represents activities filmed on 9/11 at Dulles will remain unanswered.

Additionally, it's odd that David C knew about the Loronix software but said he had never heard of Verint, the company that manufactured the cameras and owned the Loronix product. He also stated "I think we may have had only two cameras at the security checkpoints [at Dulles]" and yet could not explain how the evidentiary video appeared to be made of shots from different angles. Perhaps follow-up questions will reveal more of the truth.

If the video is a fake, how could that have been done? There are a number of considerations in answering this question.

The video was leaked to the press (at a politically timed moment) in 2004 by the law firm Motley Rice, represented at the time by terrorism propagandist Jean-Charles Brisard. How the firm came by the video was never reported. However, it is known that the FBI confiscated the original video and had shown it to a 9/11 family member who said "the terrorists' faces had been digitally disguised." Why would the FBI take the time to digitally disguise the faces of dead suspects? Moreover, if the Bureau could do that what other modifications could be done?

The FBI made at least one "training film" at Dulles. The Bureau had strong ties to Stratesec as well, in that the company's president from 1998 to 1999 was Charles Archer, the FBI's former Assistant Director In Charge of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Stratesec's directors had also previously owned a movie production company called Prism Entertainment.

How about Verint? In 2002, the year before remote access to Dulles video files became a possibility and two years before the video was released, the company named Howard Safir as a director. Safir is a former New York City Police and Fire Commissioner who was appointed to those roles by his close friend (and 9/11 suspect) Rudy Giuliani. Did Safir have any role in release of the Dulles video?

In any case, because the Dulles 9/11 video is the strongest evidence implicating the alleged hijackers, investigating its validity remains important. As shown above, questions that remain unanswered about the video can still be resolved with an objective approach that is open to dialogue and open to possibilities.

[Peter Lemkin]

Think about it. Many [many!] of the alleged hijackers have been proven to still be alive. All the videos of them that supposedly show them about to board the alleged flights seem to be strange or tampered with or invented. They were not listed on the passenger lists nor as among the dead. None of their body parts nor DNA were ever found, yet their passports and headbands etc. were (likely planted fake-'evidence'). Just like with the Pentagon 'CCTV video' of what hit it, though there were hundreds of cameras, we are told only one camera at three locations caught anything and it was not released until long long after the event - and all are suspect in many ways. Further, what we do know of the men named as the alleged hijackers doesn't comport with their 'legends', instead they were intelligence and military-connected and many lived lives of sex, drugs and such - hardly that of jihadis. Nothing of the official version of 9-11-01 is believable except the date it happened on. The rest is a fairy tale formulated for endless war and turning the USA into a police-state...which is what we now have.

[Tracy Riddle]

Has anyone ever been able to confirm that the Boston and New Jersey airports had no security cameras in 2001? Someone who used those airports frequently, for example. I just find it impossible to believe that such huge, modern airports didn't have security cams at the time.

[Peter Lemkin]

Has anyone ever been able to confirm that the Boston and New Jersey airports had no security cameras in 2001? Someone who used those airports frequently, for example. I just find it impossible to believe that such huge, modern airports didn't have security cams at the time.

All airports had security cameras in 2001!...even little tiny ones...let alone big ones.

[Tracy Riddle]

Has anyone ever been able to confirm that the Boston and New Jersey airports had no security cameras in 2001? Someone who used those airports frequently, for example. I just find it impossible to believe that such huge, modern airports didn't have security cams at the time.

All airports had security cameras in 2001!...even little tiny ones...let alone big ones.

That's what I thought, but I can't prove that those two did.

[Dean Bernard]

Having been in the electronic security industry for over 30 years and in security integration sales with large national companies for the last 16 years, I will relate my knowledge of the systems in place at the time, based on what I knew at the time. I had just transitioned from installation subcontractor for Pinkerton Systems Integration to Sales for Pinkerton at the time of the 911 event. I had installed several Loronix video systems for Pinkerton in the late 1990's as a subcontractor. At that time, Loronix was one of two companies with "State of the Art" networkable video, still using analog cameras, as IP cameras were not yet readily available commercially. I think, not 100%, both companies are/were Canadian. I know Loronix was. Verint purchased Loronix somewhere around 2003. The Loronix product, which I sold to a major Military training facility, was absolutely designed to record the time and date on each camera. I suspect it was possible to make a copy of this without the time date stamp for the reason given, but, this would be highly unlikely. First, the average video operator would not have known, or wanted to, unless asked to do so, how to do this as it was against all normal procedures and logic. After all, this is the proof of when and where.
If two or more cameras were installed at the gate, you could get simultaneous video from two angles for the same event. But, pre 911, I doubt most airports had more than this at any one gate for cost reasons. The real issue is, most all major airports have many cameras, even back then. Why are there no videos of these guys entering the terminal? Perimeter entrance is a primary objective of video surveillance at ANY facility. These videos HAD to exist. Why only show the gate videos. If they had that, they have to have more. BTW, Verint today remains a leader in high end video surveillance recording and cameras and is installed at major airports around the world using IP cameras and state of the art behavior detection algorithms very effectively. In fact, Airport surveillance is one of their specialties today.

[Dean Bernard]

In 2001, almost no video surveillance systems recorded at 30 frames per second. Primarily because most systems then we're using time-lapse VHS tape recorders and were incapable of these frame rates. If your system was capable of theses frame rates, you could not afford the storage costs to retain the video more than a day or so. These recorders were most often using recently invented video multiplexers to feed the video from multiple cameras into one VHS machine. Back then, if you had a system capable, you would be changing tapes 4 or 5 times a day to keep up with those frame rates. No one did that except some Federal prisons and gambling casinos where high frame rates really mattered.

The Boston airport could not have recorded all of their cameras on a Loronix system at 30 frames a second unless they paid millions for the video system, a rarity pre 911.

[Tracy Riddle]

Thanks for the info, Dean. Yes, I recall gas stations and convenience stores having security cameras back in 2001, so it would be astonishing if any major airport didn't. We should have lots of verified footage of all 19 hijackers that day.

[Peter Lemkin]

Thanks for the info, Dean. Yes, I recall gas stations and convenience stores having security cameras back in 2001, so it would be astonishing if any major airport didn't. We should have lots of verified footage of all 19 hijackers that day.

It is not JUST a lack of images - none of the airport personnel remember seeing any of them; no body parts or DNA of any of them, despite offers by many of the families for DNA samples. Many of them still known to be alive and they are not even listed on the list of persons killed that day, amazingly. Non-persons who by the official evidence we not even there.

As to the 'lack' of video evidence, it was not just at the airports, but around the Pentagon. The FBI within minutes started seizing all governmental and private videos from all around the building and area - never to be seen again except for the handful of see-nothing definite freeze frames - some with date-stamp of the next day [9/12/01].

The official version is a joke - a very BAD joke now destroying Amerika and the World ::fury::