Seeking Review of 9/11 Video Compositing Treatise

[acebaker]

Please feel free to download and read my treatise on the 9/11 airplane composites. Any criticism or correction will be welcomed, any questions answered.

http://www.psy-opera.com/Papers/Composites-1-8.pdf

I bring 22 data sets to test two competing hypotheses:

• The real airplane hypothesis – A real Boeing 767 airplane flew into WTC2 on 9/11.

• The video composite hypothesis – The jet crash was faked by inserting airplane images into otherwise authentic video footage.

Thank you.

Ace Baker

[dave52]

Hey Ace - welcome to the Forum.

Your link isn't working for me I'm afraid. BTW do you have a new DVD out...?

[acebaker]

Fixed the Link.

DVD is not finished.

[lightgiver]

hello ace:)
look forward to your info;)

nothing happening on link??

just to keep people informed,the mind is always best kept open;):)
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=p1RWiw4hdvs

[acebaker]

The link now works fine. It is a pdf file.

PC - Right click and save as
Mac - Control click and save as

[lightgiver]

yep working fine,cheers;):)

[bryan]

I wasn't 100% sure before, but now after reading this paper I'm certain that no planes hit the towers.

What tipped me towards no planes nearly two years ago was the live footage, especially ABC chopper 7. Just before the second impact, this chopper travels in a massive arc to position itself in a perfect straight line with the towers, so that the north tower completely blocks out the south tower. All this with fourteen seconds to spare before the event. Then as it moves across the screen, the plane itself looks totally fake and you wouldn't even know it's supposed to be coming towards you unless you were told.

Ace, are you sure the Chopper 5 composite couldn't have covered up a missile? If a missile came in from the south, it would have been hidden from Chopper 7 by the towers, so no need to cover it up from that angle. If there were definitely no missiles, how would you answer the planehuggers when they say how come the columns (or at least the cladding) got knocked inwards?

Have you any thoughts on the damage to the side of the building as the plane passes through? It's as if the right wing tip is cutting through the columns, but that's so ridiiculous you wouldn't think they'd let it go out like that.

Regarding better quality footage, I remember that when archive.org made the 9/11 broadcasts available, at first you could download them as massive raw files and for a few days people were getting them, but then they took them down and put them back up later as streaming files. Did nobody download anything useful from that collection?

Just one more thing. I'm not sure how many people would go to the trouble of downloading a pdf file, especially if they're already sceptical about the theory. If it was on a web page the detractors wouldn't have an excuse for ignoring it.

[acebaker]

I wasn't 100% sure before, but now after reading this paper I'm certain that no planes hit the towers.

What tipped me towards no planes nearly two years ago was the live footage, especially ABC chopper 7. Just before the second impact, this chopper travels in a massive arc to position itself in a perfect straight line with the towers, so that the north tower completely blocks out the south tower. All this with fourteen seconds to spare before the event. Then as it moves across the screen, the plane itself looks totally fake and you wouldn't even know it's supposed to be coming towards you unless you were told.

Ace, are you sure the Chopper 5 composite couldn't have covered up a missile? If a missile came in from the south, it would have been hidden from Chopper 7 by the towers, so no need to cover it up from that angle. If there were definitely no missiles, how would you answer the planehuggers when they say how come the columns (or at least the cladding) got knocked inwards?

Have you any thoughts on the damage to the side of the building as the plane passes through? It's as if the right wing tip is cutting through the columns, but that's so ridiiculous you wouldn't think they'd let it go out like that.

Regarding better quality footage, I remember that when archive.org made the 9/11 broadcasts available, at first you could download them as massive raw files and for a few days people were getting them, but then they took them down and put them back up later as streaming files. Did nobody download anything useful from that collection?

Just one more thing. I'm not sure how many people would go to the trouble of downloading a pdf file, especially if they're already sceptical about the theory. If it was on a web page the detractors wouldn't have an excuse for ignoring it.

Yes, I'm sure they couldn't have covered up a missile. Literally covering up a missile with a plane image is possible, but not in real time. It would require real-time motion tracking of the incoming missile, and that's currently impossible to do reliably. Certainly not in 2001.

They would never use a missile or any flying object. It's too risky that people would take a picture or a video of it. But how does one take a picture of nothing? You can't. It's brilliant.

Anyone who says the towers just exploded ( and there were many of those ) is explained away by saying "they just missed it". Notice how there is no video of the holes in the towers actually forming.

The inward bent columns were done the same way that they were done later on, again, just before the demolitions. They melted floor trusses with incendiaries, which causes the floors to sag. This causes an inward pull between the core and the perimeter.

Thank you for the input, I will address these points in future revisions. Most of the material in the pdf is already on my blog. It's there for anybody who cares to look.

www.acebaker.blogspot.com

[bryan]

They would never use a missile or any flying object. It's too risky that people would take a picture or a video of it. But how does one take a picture of nothing? You can't. It's brilliant.

If the '30,000 eyewitnesses' all took a photo of the no plane, we'd have 30,000 photos of a blue sky. No proof of anything. This raises the question of why there aren't more pictures of the alleged plane, especially amateur-quality shots with loads of motion blur.

The inward bent columns were done the same way that they were done later on, again, just before the demolitions. They melted floor trusses with incendiaries, which causes the floors to sag. This causes an inward pull between the core and the perimeter.

Did NIST give the game away by claiming it was this effect which initiated the 'colapse' of the towers? That would be nice touch.


For people who still don't know how to insert a ghostplane:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc


Sign the petition requesting broadcast-quality 9/11 news videos:

http://www.petitiononline.com/Video911/petition.html

[acebaker]

Yes, NIST blames "collapse" initiation on inward bowing of perimeter columns. Of course, they say this was caused by the hot fires, not incendiaries.

But the perimeter columns were bowing inwards, for sure. Jim Hoffman tried to screw us up by saying it might be an optical illusion caused by heat.

[bryan]

Ace, do you think there was a delay in the live feeds or were they totally live?

If you watch the BBC footage in the archives:

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

(BBC, 8:34 am - 9:16 am)

At [28:33] we see the ABC/Chopper 7 composite and just a few seconds later Steve Evans, who's live on the phone, describes the explosions. The problem is that nobody in the studio notices the plane travelling across the screen and hitting the towers.

Then at [33:47] the news anchor says that pictures of the second crash have just come in, and we see the same Chopper 7 composite, only this time speeded up!

Did they alter the archives to make it look like the explosions reported by Steve Evans were caused by the impact of the plane?

Later (starting at [36:07]) the Chopper 7 composite is shown a few times without any logos and the nose out seems to be present in this one as well.

[acebaker]

The "speeding up" is probably just a conversion issue. PAL is 25 frames per second, NTSC is 30. COnverting to PAL loses 1 out of every 6 frames. Play that back at 30 frames per second, and it will look sped up and jerky.

Totally live or delayed? Good question. There's no direct way to tell from looking at a video. Video is video. That's one of the most important things to remember about all news footage, you can't necessarily tell when something was shot.

The best clue we have about delay is the ABC broadcast. Don Dahler is speaking from the scene, we hear two beeps, and his voice is cut off. He then begins a completely new sentence.

This is consistent with ABC switching OUT of delay, and INTO going completely live. There is dialog missing. If they switched INTO delay, there would be a section of dialog repeated, or else they would have to cover the delay with something else ( a video tape or whatever). We don't hear that. We hear Don Dahler being cut off.

I have no doubt they would fix up any problems with the footage prior to posting it on the archives.

I repeat my call to anyone - If you have live VHS tape you recorded off television on 9/11, please look and see if you recorded at 9:02-9:03 AM New York time. There must be someone out there who has a tape.

I will offer a reward.

[bryan]

Only 2 different airplane videos are confirmed to have been shown live – Chopper 5 and Chopper 7. The two live shots each originated from a gyroscopically stabilized camera mount on board a news helicopter. They feature a remarkable list of shared compositional characteristics:


Very brief (<1 second) appearance and disappearance of plane.
High contrast between sky and tower edge
Plane path is across sky only.
Plane disappears across straight vertical edge.
All surfaces requiring airplane shadows are hidden.
Actual impact point is hidden.
Exploding walls are hidden.
Camera is as stable as possible, helicopter drifts very slowly to the left.
No panning, tilting, zooming or focusing while airplane is on screen


As it turns out, these are precisely the characteristics necessary for live video compositing. Absent any one of these 9, real-time compositing becomes impossible. Given all 9, real-time compositing is quite feasible.

http://www.psy-opera.com/Papers/Composites-1-8.pdf

In live compositing,

1. Would the layer mask move with the camera, or could it be stabilized so that it stays over the towers while the camera moves?

2. Would the plane-image be aligned to the layer mask or to the camera screen?

According to September Clues, it's the fact that the helicopter is drifting to the left which causes the error that results in the nose out. As I see it, if the layer mask was moving to the left with the camera, then there be the possibility that the 'nose in' would pass in front of the edge of the building, and the 'nose out' might appear out of thin air. But if the layer mask stayed over the buildings, the nose out could only be caused by the drift to the left if the plane-image was aligned to the camera's screen rather than to the layer mask. Hope I'm making sense.

By the way, when I first read the sentence that says all 9 of the compositional characteristics are necessary for video compositing, I thought for a minute that the helicopter drift was a necessary characteristic, then I realized that it's the stability that matters.

I was wondering too, if your research owes a lot to Simon Shack's work or if it's the other way round.

[acebaker]

In live compositing,

1. Would the layer mask move with the camera, or could it be stabilized so that it stays over the towers while the camera moves?

2. Would the plane-image be aligned to the layer mask or to the camera screen?

According to September Clues, it's the fact that the helicopter is drifting to the left which causes the error that results in the nose out. As I see it, if the layer mask was moving to the left with the camera, then there be the possibility that the 'nose in' would pass in front of the edge of the building, and the 'nose out' might appear out of thin air. But if the layer mask stayed over the buildings, the nose out could only be caused by the drift to the left if the plane-image was aligned to the camera's screen rather than to the layer mask. Hope I'm making sense.

By the way, when I first read the sentence that says all 9 of the compositional characteristics are necessary for video compositing, I thought for a minute that the helicopter drift was a necessary characteristic, then I realized that it's the stability that matters.

I was wondering too, if your research owes a lot to Simon Shack's work or if it's the other way round.

On the live shots, the layer mask is not stationary, and it is not stabilized. It is done with "luma key". Luma key makes transparent everything that is brighter than a certain value. In this case they made the sky transparent.

They began by splitting the live camera shot into two identical copies, which go on two layers in the compositor. Then the top copy has the sky made transparent with luma key.

Sandwiched in between these two layers goes the airplane.

Here's a complete theory.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/05/theory-of-live-911-airplane-composites.html

[acebaker]

On Simon Shack -

I agree with Shack's overall conclusion, that there were no plane crashes and that the news media people are complicit.

I disagree with Shack that there was a missile, or any flying object.

On individual points, I frankly find very little agreement with Simon Shack. He gets many, many things dead wrong.

He completely screwed up the explanation for the nose-out, for instance. He claimed there was a static mask and the Chopper drifted out of place. This was an easy target for Anthony Lawson, who simply pointed out that this would move the other side of the mask as well.

"Pixel perfect match" - wrong.
"Missing frames in CHopper 7" - so what? It's a PAL conversion.
"Misplaced reflection in Fairbanks" - wrong.
"17 second delay" - wrong.

There's a lot more. Anyone can make mistakes. I've made some. But it is my sincere desire to correct them and move forward toward an irrefutable proof. I think I am there with my treatise, I'm pestering everybody on earth to try and point out errors, and it's holding up quite well.

[bryan]

On the live shots, the layer mask is not stationary, and it is not stabilized. It is done with "luma key". Luma key makes transparent everything that is brighter than a certain value. In this case they made the sky transparent.

So the effect is that the mask stays over the towers even though the camera is moving.

Is there any reason then, why you don't make it explicit in your paper that the nose-out error was caused by the helecopter's drift to the left? StillDiggin, for example, makes it clear that the nose-out happens because the layer mask stays over the towers while the plane-image, being tied to the drifting camera, travels further than planned. I just think it's a more complete explanation and helps people to understand.


By the way, are there parts missing from the 'Unstable Motion' section of your pdf? I don't see the images for these:
Here are various control cases that test the method.
Here is a video composite airplane crash that I found on the internet.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/05/theory-of-live-911-airplane-composites.html

I was hoping you'd make a video on how the chopper 5 and chopper 7 shots were faked, but I see you've already done that.

Amazing that more people aren't interested in this stuff.

In fact, there seems to be a concerted effort to ignore it.

[acebaker]

The nose-out error was not caused by the drift to the left, at least not directly. The nose-out happened because they let the airplane layer play too long.

It could well be that they had planned for the towers to be just a little further to the left in the picture, so that the airplane image never travels far enough to escape.

It is not possible that they forgot about helicopter drift. Helicopters cannot hold still. Surely they rehearsed the shot, took test shots ahead of time, etc.

[acebaker]

Yes, I need to finish the section on unstable motion, thank you for noticing.

[thematrix]

"A systematic consideration of the available 9/11 airplane videos, in
consideration of the principles of video compositing, Newtonian physics,
logic, and common sense, rules out the hypothesis of real planes"

there are approximately 40 videos showing the southtower impact. "A systematic consideration of the available 9/11 airplane videos" implies you review all of these.

"the principles of video compositing, Newtonian physics,
logic, and common sense, rules out the hypothesis of real planes"

Also wrong. For starters "common sense" rules the NPT out straight away given the eye witnesses to the event.
Given that there is not a significant body of scientists up in arms about the way that the "supposed planes" broke scientific law who's principles are taught in schools to 12 year olds logic clearly dictates that it is your understanding of these laws that is erroneous. I would suggest getting the views of a real qualified physist in the this regard.

"The FOX “Chopper 5” and CNN “Ghostplane” videos are both shown to have multiple
observable features irreconcilable with reality, yet perfectly consistent with video
compositing. For instance, Chopper 5 is missing an airplane in its first 5 seconds. The
airplane that finally does appear has unstable motion. The nose of the airplane image was
accidentally allowed to pop out from the back of the tower, and it’s missing a shadow.
The wings of CNN Ghostplane pass through the wall of the tower, yet no damage is
observed. There’s a puffball that appears in different places in different videos. Each one
of these is strictly impossible in reality. Each one of these is a commonplace problem in
the world of video compositing."

You completely fail to consider a third alternative, namely that the quality of the video footage with all the limitations imposed upon it by the cameras used, the settings of the cameras used, difficulties with things liek perpective, depth of field, focal length, frame rate, resolution, processing of images after capture in the camera itself, processing of videos subsequently pre analysis may well in fact render these videos of too low quality to perform the kind of analysis that you are trying.


"missing shadow"

No that video is not missing a shadow, you fail to understand correctly what is being seen (chopper 5 video) the shadow is there in fact, it's very hard to discern given the quality of the footage. The surface of the tower is not flat, the aluminium clad "ribs" of the tower surface reflect the sunlight in different ways from different directions. because the two videos comapred are from differnt angles the shadow effects seen differ significantly becuase of this, an "optical illusion" is created in the video as a result.



"Having proven compositing on Chopper 5 and Ghostplane"

At no point anywhere in this paper do you "prove" compositing was used. Not once.

You demonstrate on occasion that compositing *could* have been used, you also demonstrate repeatedly that a) you don't really know your subject well enough to be offering an "expert opinion" on it and b) the footage analysed is too poor to draw any conclusions from pertinant to the subject of the paper.

Skimming through the rest of the treatise:


"No plane in the wide shot"

Given UA175s "dive bomb trajectory" it is highly likely that the airplane is out of shot and *above* the wide frame, and hence missing.

Your analysis of the "unstable motion" does not show how you worked out your method. How can others test your method to check to see whether it is flawed and introduces errors into the data that would account for the "more unstable" aircraft motion?

Publish the method used and how you did the workings in the paper or an appendix and allow your method to be subjected to scrutiny.

"newtons laws" "collision with a tremendously strong building, arguably
the strongest in the world, an airplane with its far lower mass, density and
strength because it is built to be lightweight, would be far less able to
withstand the equal force exerted on both bodies."

that is so flawed I am not sure where to start. This quote is from an economist and you are using it to bolster your case when you should in fact have asked the thoughts of a physicist Basically the towers are not "tremendously strong" when faced with an impact of that speed and power from a horizontal direction. For starters lots of the area impacted by the jet was simply windows. - Are you suggesting that a aircraft going at 500+mph is going to bounce off a window??????

Hell if there was some way of accelerating a marshmallow to that speed it ould smash through the tower in much the same way as the aircraft did. Newtons Laws of clasical mechanics allow us to compute the potential impact energy - The impact is MASSIVE and the building facade barely resists it - analysis of video shows the plane in fact slows in velocity by ~18% - so only 18% of the potential available KineticEnergy was used to puncture the towers facade the majority of the remaining 82% was transferred to the inside core of each tower (less some small % seeing as some debris went straight theough and came out the other side)

You demonstrate woeful ignorance of Newtons Laws - and expect people to take your views on video compositing seriously when you are no more qualified in that field than a musician who has made his own music videos for a number of years.

"We are to believe that
this airplane met those floors edge-on, and all those steel columns, at more than 500
m.p.h., and not a single piece broke off and fell to the ground?"

There is eyewtiness accounts in the oral testimonies of aircraft parts raing to the ground pre collapse - and people injured by fallen aircraft debris - your above statement is dishonest at best - and a flat out lie at worst.

"Real-time motion tracking
did not exist in 2001, and to this day is not nearly reliable enough to identify and track an
incoming flying object."

In this sentance you nix your entire theory. In orer to stabilise something you by definition need to use motion tracking. A mechanically stabilised platform is not stable enough - check this by adding a fixed image to each frame of the "mechanically stabilised" footage - it jerks around too much for the errors seen to be mistaken as resolution errors. Don't forget that this fakery needs to stand the test of time and needs to fool many experts in compositing for a long time afterward.Are there ANY experts that agree with your hypothesis?

In closing - to return to the point about common sense.

Common sense looks at the many many corroborating eyewitnesses and plane debris, it looks at the poor quality of the available video, and it throws away the NPT without much further thought.

How do you explain away the eyewitnesses, and the plane debris?

To not do so suggest you also not only lack common sense - but have a severe case of confirmation bias.

[bryan]

Hell if there was some way of accelerating a marshmallow to that speed it would smash through the tower in much the same way as the aircraft did.

Tell your scriptwriter he's already used that one.

As the NASA boys are fond of pointing out, you could knock a satellite out of orbit with a marshmallow IF you could accelerate the marshmallow sufficiently.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=479554&highlight=marshmallow#post479554

[acebaker]

TheMatrix -

You've addressed a couple of points. Keep going. When you're done, I'll publish your entire critique and my responses on my blog. I will edit out anything I think is a personal attack, but anything having to do with video compositing and/or physics is in.

-Ace Baker

[thematrix]

Ace:

I do not intend personal attacks. I am sorry if you interperet my post in this manner. I also don't have the time to go through the entire treatise and write up more critique.

I would suggest you ask a physicist about Newtons Laws and don't take my word for it - I would suggest you publish more of the method and workings in the "unstable motion" section so that people can see what you did and how you did it to determine whether the observed phenonemon is a fault with the footage or whether your method introduces errors somewhere.

Above all find some bona fide video compositing experts and get them to critique as they will likely do a better job than I have.

[bryan]

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth - The Rules of Disinformation (http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222)


At no point anywhere in this paper do you "prove" compositing was used. Not once.

Rule 19. Ignore proof presented, and demand impossible truths. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by.


Newtons Laws of clasical mechanics allow us to compute the potential impact energy - The impact is MASSIVE and the building facade barely resists it - analysis of video shows the plane in fact slows in velocity by ~18% - so only 18% of the potential available KineticEnergy was used to puncture the towers facade the majority of the remaining 82% was transferred to the inside core of each tower (less some small % seeing as some debris went straight theough and came out the other side).

Rule 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.


Given that there is not a significant body of scientists up in arms about the way that the "supposed planes" broke scientific law who's principles are taught in schools to 12 year olds logic clearly dictates that it is your understanding of these laws that is erroneous.

Rule 13.Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.


In your appeal to physics, you're pretending that the impact of a passenger jet would be like that of a billiard ball.

The truth is, we don't need physicists to help us work this one out. All we need is everyday experience of the world, common sense, and honesty. These three qualities are enough to tell anybody that if a real plane had hit the WTC, it would have turned itself into a mangled heap, hanging half-in and half-out of the building.


You're also ignoring the main gist of the argument: the possibility that it was pure chance that the media filmed the events the way they did are so remote that it proves the coverage was planned in detail to bring about a certain result.


In the case of the south tower plane strike, the positioning of the TV cameras led to the following situation:

1. Even though there were ten or so TV cameras pointing at the towers at the time of the event, none of them caught the plane impacting the building. In other words, when the plane allegedly came in from the south, all the TV cameras were positioned within an angle of 180 degrees on the north side of the WTC.

2. Only two of the cameras caught the plane on live TV. In both cases the approaching object disappeared behind the towers before the building exploded. Both these cameras just happened to position themselves seconds earlier in a spot which offered ideal conditions for the insertion of a CGI, an operation which requires many conditions that are unlikely to happen together by chance. One of these feeds was being broadcast live around the world at the time.

3. No 'action replays' from the other camera angles were shown immediately after the event. One which showed a 'speck' approaching the towers was shown after two minutes, and the first one with an object recognisable as a plane appeared after seven minutes.

4. Whereas multiple TV cameras failed to film the plane hitting the tower, a few amateurs and independent media people managed to provide, according to yourself, 'approximately 40 videos showing the southtower impact'. These videos started to turn up during the afternoon, after they'd been examined by the FBI.


Every one of these coincidences would have been extremely convenient for the TV companies if their job had been to convince the world that a plane flew into the south tower, when in fact the building simply exploded.


Common sense looks at the many many corroborating eyewitnesses and plane debris, it looks at the poor quality of the available video, and it throws away the NPT without much further thought.

How do you explain away the eyewitnesses, and the plane debris?

Accepting eyewitness accounts and plane debris as evidence is more about trust than common sense. When the official story is unlikely or impossible, common sense should tell you there must be something wrong with the eyewitnesses accounts and the plane debris.

It's strange that two of your main themes are the poor quality of the videos and the need to consult experts. One of your preferred experts, 'video compositing expert Steve Wright', has said he doesn't think better quality video would help to answer the questions about TV fakery.

[thematrix]

Rule 19. Ignore proof presented, and demand impossible truths. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by.

Can you (or Ace) point to to the place in the treatise that *proves* compositing was used? Cos I can't find it and that is why I state that Ace does not prove any such thing. As I noted Ace shows that compositing is ONE (of several) plausible explanations for the anomalies he notes.

At no point in the post I made have I demanded "impossible truths" so your first accusation falls a bit flat here on both counts.


Rule 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

See bryan this is what is known as an ad hominem - where you attack the person and not what the person is saying. Newtons Laws are taught to pupils in secondary schools. Which means it's pretty basic physics. I even recommend that Ace (or other readers) talk to a qulaified person in this regard and not take my word for it. There are physics teachers well qualified enough to answer this point in just about every school in the country - it's not all that hard to pick up the telephone and ask one of them about it. If what I am saying is soooo wrong - then go right ahead and prove me wrong - contact a physicist and then report back.


Rule 13.Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

actually no- that is pretty solid logic. IN SEVEN YEARS since - there are not lots of physicists telling people that the impacts broke the laws of physics. This is because the impacts did not break the laws of physics.


In your appeal to physics, you're pretending that the impact of a passenger jet would be like that of a billiard ball.


thats a strawman argument - that is not what I am saying at all.


The truth is, we don't need physicists to help us work this one out. All we need is everyday experience of the world, common sense, and honesty. These three qualities are enough to tell anybody that if a real plane had hit the WTC, it would have turned itself into a mangled heap, hanging half-in and half-out of the building.


Wrong. wrong. wrong. You also demonstrate woeful ignorance on physics. Please please don't listen to me - ask a qualified person - a real physicist - and then report back.


Accepting eyewitness accounts and plane debris as evidence is more about trust than common sense. When the official story is unlikely or impossible, common sense should tell you there must be something wrong with the eyewitnesses accounts and the plane debris.


But the official story insofar as AA11 and UA175 hit the towers, and the videos of the impacts are videos of real events and are not faked is not unlikely and most certainly isn't impossible.


It's strange that two of your main themes are the poor quality of the videos and the need to consult experts. One of your preferred experts, 'video compositing expert Steve Wright', has said he doesn't think better quality video would help to answer the questions about TV fakery.

When have I ever stated that "Steve Wright" is one of my preferred experts?

In any case you are talking generally about "TV fakery questions" and as I recall SW was talking specifically about a few questions he was being asked about at the time in the Hardfire interview.


I note that Ace responed to my post with civility and offered to post my remarks to his blog (suitably edited) and encouraged me to post more critique. You launch an attack on me detaling how I am supposedly "suppressing truth" and previously post remarks that seem to imply I share a scriptwriter with Ron Wiek.

Thanks for that.

[graflok]

Also wrong. For starters "common sense" rules the NPT out straight away given the eye witnesses to the event.

The complete opposite is true. Given that it is known the government lied
about 9/11, common sense would tell you that witness testimony would
have been manufactured as well. Nothing could be easier to fake than
"witness testimony." One simply instructs the person in what to say.

[thematrix]

The complete opposite is true. Given that it is known the government lied
about 9/11, common sense would tell you that witness testimony would
have been manufactured as well. Nothing could be easier to fake than
"witness testimony." One simply instructs the person in what to say.

You really aren't using your common sense here at all.

So the perps got AA11 to crash into the North Tower - inevitably this causes thousands of people to drop what they are doing and stare at the unfolding disaster, also the worlds media descends on the area as fast as it possibly can. Despite the fact that the MSM is obviouslly controlled in a compartmentalised fashion the majority of the peopel working in it elieve that they are a part of a free media and can interview anyone they dam well like - controllers at networks are keen for something anything to help flesh out the story as it unfolds so are more likely to air all kinds of interviews. Yet you are suggesting that only people that have been told what to say get to talk to the media? Surely if the perps told thousands of people what to say that information would have leaked out by now already....

The logistics involved in controlling the scene in order to keep the story straight that actual planes have crashed at the WTC is so mind-bogglingly complex that common sense and logic tell us that real planes crashed where the official story claims they did.

[graflok]

See bryan this is what is known as an ad hominem - where you attack the person and not what the person is saying.

You mean like the following quote from yourself?


Wrong. wrong. wrong. You also demonstrate woeful ignorance on physics.

[graflok]

The logistics involved in controlling the scene in order to keep the story straight that actual planes have crashed at the WTC is so mind-bogglingly complex that common sense and logic tell us that real planes crashed where the official story claims they did.

Perhaps your mind is boggled but it is still true and has always been true that
manufacturing "witness" testimony is a oft used trick of the intel community.

And, the fact is they didn't control all the testimony as there are
witnesses who said there were no planes. You know, the ones you have
chosen to ignore?

[thematrix]

You mean like the following quote from yourself?

No - if you read the bit I just quoted you'll see I attacke dhis argument three times, and then conclude after that that he does not understand basic physics.

the fact is they didn't control all the testimony as there are
witnesses who said there were no planes. You know, the ones you have
chosen to ignore?

Why are you assumng I am ignoring these witnesses?

i) how many "no plane" witnesses are there?
ii) where were they positioned and what view could they have had of the impacting aircraft?
iii)how many "plane" witnesses are there?
iv)what locations were those witnesses in?
v) Which body of witness testimony most often independantly corroborates with each other?

[graflok]

^ The whole witness angle is actually a dead end as far as I'm concerned.
I only mentioned it because I found your statement amusing that it is
"mind bogglingly complex" to have fake witnesses.

And, I pointed out that there were witnesses who also said there were no
planes simply to illustrate that they can't control all the witnesses in
a scenario like that (and that they don't really have to).

Manufacturing "witness testimony" is SOP for events staged by the intel
community. Examples abound if you look into Columbine, VA Tech, and the
many other staged psyops, well documented on the net.

It is so common that counting which witnesses said what is actually ludicrous
in my opinion. The "witnesses" always support official stories because that's
what they were set up to do. And, it's so easy to do despite how it boggles
your mind, as you put it. :)

[bryan]

As I noted Ace shows that compositing is ONE (of several) plausible explanations for the anomalies he notes.

He shows that it's the ONLY plausible explanation for the anomalies.


At no point in the post I made have I demanded "impossible truths" so your first accusation falls a bit flat here on both counts.

By ignoring the mountains of evidence available, you're implying you'd only be convinced by something like a signed affidavit from the helicopter pilot.


When have I ever stated that "Steve Wright" is one of my preferred experts?

"Steve Wright is a senior digital effects veteran with almost 20 years experience creating digital effects for feature films and broadcast commercials. As a digital effects compositor he has over 50 feature film credits plus numerous broadcast commercials and has published a popular book on digital compositing, "Digital Compositing for Film and Video" (Amazon.com). He was also the 2D Technical Director for Kodak's Cinesite for several years, a Hollywood leader in digital compositing. His recent production activities have been as Technical Director for feature film digital intermediates and is now freelance."

I would say that qualifies him to talk about digital effects and manipulation of video imagery. Which is after all what this Hardfire episode was talking about.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=487505&highlight=steve+wright#post487505


I note that Ace responed to my post with civility and offered to post my remarks to his blog (suitably edited) and encouraged me to post more critique.

He probably wants more material for his blog to show the lack of serious criticism he's received.

[thematrix]

He shows that it's the ONLY plausible explanation for the anomalies.

he only considers TWO possible explanations - and for one of those (the plane hypothesis he rejects) he is assuming that the videos captured flawlessly exactly what happened and ONLY exactly what happened with no errors caused by the limitations of the cameras etc.

Even IF he showed it was the only "plausible explanation" that does not constitute PROOF.


By ignoring the mountains of evidence available, you're implying you'd only be convinced by something like a signed affidavit from the helicopter pilot.

What mountains of evidence? I would be convinced if Ace was an expert - or other bona fide experts agreed with him. Or if the video analysed was of sufficiently good quality to even analyse at all. There is a mountain of evidence that disagrees with NPT (for starters the eyewitnesses and the plane debris)


["preferred expert"]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=487505&highlight=preferred#post487505

I've switched the UBB code on the above link to highlight the word "preferred" - you'll note that I not once refer to SW as a "preferred expert" - I have cited SW before - that is all.

[graflok]

There is a mountain of evidence that disagrees with NPT (for starters the eyewitnesses and the plane debris)

Both easily faked as they obviously were at the Pentagon.

[bryan]

I would be convinced if Ace was an expert - or other bona fide experts agreed with him.

What happens when the experts disagree? Do we follow the majority?

Are you telling us to believe the dentists who say fluoridation is a good thing, the doctors who say vaccinations are harmless, and the geneticists who say we should eat GM food?


Even IF he showed it was the only "plausible explanation" that does not constitute PROOF.

There you go again, demanding impossible truths.

Proof of guilt is not the same as scientific or mathematical proof. A jury convicts when it's 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the accused committed the crime. The positioning of the TV cameras at the WTC on 9/11 proves beyond reasonable doubt that people involved in the live broadcasts knowingly took part in a set-up.

Would I be right in suspecting you haven't seen any proof that Building 7 was demolished?


The logistics involved in controlling the scene in order to keep the story straight that actual planes have crashed at the WTC is so mind-bogglingly complex that common sense and logic tell us that real planes crashed where the official story claims they did.

They don't need total control of the scene. They decide which interviews and which images get repeated over and over again. After the first few hours, people soon forget any anomalies in the early reports.


Hell if there was some way of accelerating a marshmallow to that speed it would smash through the tower in much the same way as the aircraft did.

So if Bin Laden had thought to consult an expert before carrying out his plans, we might have seen headlines like:

'BREAKING NEWS. Two Jaffa Cakes have crashed into the World Trade Centre in New York'.

[thematrix]

What happens when the experts disagree? Do we follow the majority?

What experts are disagreeing?

for the NPT every single video expert agrees that NPT is wrong. On one side we appear to have *every* expert in the world on the subject (please do point me to ANY experts out there who do agree with NPT - I can't find any) on the other side we have Ace Baker and Simon Shack.


Proof of guilt is not the same as scientific or mathematical proof. A jury convicts when it's 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the accused committed the crime. The positioning of the TV cameras at the WTC on 9/11 proves beyond reasonable doubt that people involved in the live broadcasts knowingly took part in a set-up.

No it doesn't. It may well prove beyond YOUR reasonable doubts, but certainly not mine. In any case comparing this to a court scenario is meaningless. Ace Bakers paper is a scientific paper. It states as much in the opening paragraph and should be held to scientific standards of proof.

It would be a good thing if we can stick to discusing Aces paper in this thread.

[banoyes]

What experts are disagreeing?

for the NPT every single video expert agrees that NPT is wrong. On one side we appear to have *every* expert in the world on the subject (please do point me to ANY experts out there who do agree with NPT - I can't find any) on the other side we have Ace Baker and Simon Shack.
There is no chance this poster knows ANY video expert who will validate the videos.
What he says is exactly backwards
No one will say the videos are real .. It is far too easy to prove them fake

"for the NPT every single video expert agrees that NPT is wrong"
for those interested this is a "tell" a fairly common one for disinfo specialists
"every single".. the "inclusive",claiming what is not yours to claim
they do it a lot

[graflok]

What experts are disagreeing?


John Lear has 40 years aviation experience and holds every certificate the FAA
offers. Would he not qualify as an aviation expert?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes

[mynameis]

John Lear has 40 years aviation experience and holds every certificate the FAA
offers. Would he not qualify as an aviation expert?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes

Does Lear have a degree in aerospace engineering? No. Is the shaker system corroborated by other pilots? No. Is Lear being as truthful as he seems? I know of very truthful and genuine people that claim they believe anything and everything and many of them inhabit mental institutions.

[thematrix]

John Lear has 40 years aviation experience and holds every certificate the FAA
offers. Would he not qualify as an aviation expert?


We've been through this already.

Yes John Lear is an emminently qualified avaition expert.

I am talking about video experts in the context of people able to dispute Ace Bakers treatise which focuses on video evidence and the anomalies in the 8 videos that Ace has identified.

If it makes it easier for you to comprehend as you seem unable to follow the context, I will rephrase my question.

"Which video experts are disagreeing?"

[graflok]

We've been through this already.

Yes John Lear is an emminently qualified avaition expert.

I am talking about video experts in the context of people able to dispute Ace Bakers treatise which focuses on video evidence and the anomalies in the 8 videos that Ace has identified.

So you ignore all other experts? Even experts with direct and applicable
expertise? Seems like narrow "thinking" to me.


If it makes it easier for you to comprehend as you seem unable to follow the context, I will rephrase my question.

What happened to your condemnation of ad hom criticisms? Or, do those
rules only apply to those who criticize you?

As for comprehension, I'd like to point out that it is you who believes
that a Boeing 767 is a flickering cartoon capable of melting through a steel
building without slowing down and imparting billions of foot pounds of energy
to a building that sways in the wind without causing the slightest visible
displacement of the building. :)


"Which video experts are disagreeing?"

The point that you are attempting to dodge is: if an aviation expert says the
planes were impossible, why do you need a video expert?

Or, more importantly, why don't you simply open your eyes and look at
the obvious impossibility depicted in the videos?

Do you need a film expert to tell you that no real dinosaurs were used in
the Jurassic Park movies?

[acebaker]

It's interesting you mention Jurassic Park. Steve Wright is saying that because the Chopper 5 footage is interlaced, it could not have been composited.

It is true that compositing is not normally done with interlaced video. Moving an overlayed image up or down by less than entire scan lines would create a big mess.

But that doesn't mean that interlaced final footage could not have been composited. It means that the composite was most likely done in a progressive format, then converted to interlaced for TV.

I use the DVD version of Jurassic Park as an example. The DVD is interlaced. By Wright's logic, they must be real dinosaurs.

[bryan]

It may well prove beyond YOUR reasonable doubts, but certainly not mine. In any case comparing this to a court scenario is meaningless. Ace Bakers paper is a scientific paper. It states as much in the opening paragraph and should be held to scientific standards of proof.

It would be a good thing if we can stick to discusing Aces paper in this thread.

If you look back over this thread, you'll see that, before you made your appearance, the discussion was centred on various practical considerations of live video compositing. It was you alone who steered the thread towards a 'court scenario', when you repeatedly claimed that Ace Baker's composites theory is disproved by eyewitness accounts and evidence of plane debris. Eyewitness statements and images of unidentified plane parts might be used as evidence in a court case, but they are not scientific proof.

I tried to accomodate you and your red herrings, by pointing out that a jury can convict on proof 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Now you say you're only interested in scientific proof.

That's fine. So if you and your experts have any scientific proof which contradicts Ace Baker's theory, please post it and stop wasting everybody's time.

[sidlittle]

Do you need a film expert to tell you that no real dinosaurs were used in
the Jurassic Park movies?


a top line..
:D

[deany]

not even the T rex ones were real??

[mynameis]

If you look back over this thread, you'll see that, before you made your appearance, the discussion was centred on various practical considerations of live video compositing. It was you alone who steered the thread towards a 'court scenario', when you repeatedly claimed that Ace Baker's composites theory is disproved by eyewitness accounts and evidence of plane debris. Eyewitness statements and images of unidentified plane parts might be used as evidence in a court case, but they are not scientific proof.

I tried to accomodate you and your red herrings, by pointing out that a jury can convict on proof 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Now you say you're only interested in scientific proof.

That's fine. So if you and your experts have any scientific proof which contradicts Ace Baker's theory, please post it and stop wasting everybody's time.

The scientific proof of which something hit is that the bars on the outside of the wtc bend inwards. All evidence corroborates that something plane sized hit the wtc, now what do the witnesses say when you ask one? If you were able to take the distance into account from the wtc complex and graph the claims of what was seen, you'll see a pattern emerge according to distance. If complete the pattern will show a reasonable and accurate representation describing the event.

[bryan]

The scientific proof of which something hit is that the bars on the outside of the wtc bend inwards.

Nice to see you make a valid point.

[graflok]

now what do the witnesses say when you ask one?

Lets' ask one and see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU&feature=related

[onourwayto2012]

"I hate Judy Wood. Judy Wood is a liar, a fraud, and a despicable human being. Judy Wood knows perfectly well that there is no Hutchison Effect. In my opinion, based on the evidence, Judy Wood is a conspirator to mass murder, participating intentionally in the disinformation campaign associated with the crimes of 9/11. Judy Wood is therefore deserving of my hatred, and the hatred of all good and honest people."........Ace Baker
I think Ace is a little jealous cuz Judy's info is cooler than his. He already crapped on DI for his reptillian ideas.
It should also be noted that, live on Fetzer’s radio show, Ace stated that Andrew Johnson sent him “hate correspondence”. This is completely untrue. Ace is a major disruptor and troublemaker...... I agree

[acebaker]

Yes, I confirm and re-allege everything about Judy Wood that is quoted above.

Judy Wood is an insider. Her mission is to present the visual evidence, then associate it with a false theory.

To her fans here, you all certainly didn't mind when she published all that negative stuff about Steven Jones.

Jones is an insider also. Together, Jones and Wood had the mission of destroying the case for molten metal.

Molten metal was seen on TV dripping out of the south tower. That's the only reason we ever heard one word about molten metal.

[dave52]

Hey Ace - I just spent my lunch time listening to your coversation with Markus Allen over at Real Truth In 7 Minutes (http://www.truthin7minutes.com/). I thought it was really interesting - well done....!

I notice that you are working on a DVD called The Great American Psy-Opera (http://www.psy-opera.com/), any chance of seeing that soon...?

Cheers.

[onourwayto2012]

Hey dave52,do you have an opinion on the Judy Wood DEW thing? I'm asking because this whole issue continues to fragment more and more beyond the initial planers/npters. I've always appreciated your rather calm and reasonable approach in your posts btw.

[dave52]

Hey dave52,do you have an opinion on the Judy Wood DEW thing? I'm asking because this whole issue continues to fragment more and more beyond the initial planers/npters. I've always appreciated your rather calm and reasonable approach in your posts btw.

Well thanks mate...!

I have to be honest and say that the jury is still out for me. I do not believe that Thermite or conventional demolition was used to bring down the Twin Towers. A quick comparison with the conventional looking destruction of Building 7 convinces me that some sort of new tech was used.

I'm currently caught between some form of futuristic mini-nukes and DEW, both are believable as far as I'm concerned, but I have no way of knowing for sure.

As for Judy Wood, I think she has some interesting things to say, but I dislike her delivery and I find myself unconvinced by her a lot of the time. Steven Jones on the other hand is very smooth but has government shill written all over him imho.

9/11 was the perfect blend of military, future tech, media and psyop. I am convinced of No Planes, and I think that exposing the media is the best place to start. The hows and whys would follow soon after - all we need now is an investigative journalist with some balls - Pilger would be good. :)

[dave52]

By the way - I finally got round to reading through Ace's PDF - it is a fine piece of work - well done Ace...!