[Merged]Ace Baker Vs. Steve Wright

[pomeroo]

The first of two shows featuring Ace Baker and video compositing expert Steven Wright is now available on Google:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7525630132704372500&hl=en

[T.A.M.]

I love near the end of the video, when ACE tries to convince us that a shot taken LIVE from a MOVING HELICOPTER 4 Miles out, was all planned, and they used this to set up their plane track to slow down EXACTLY at the instant the plane went through the building.

He has fully bought the thing, but he is fundamentally wrong.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

The first of two shows featuring Ace Baker and video compositing expert Steven Wright is now available on Google:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7525630132704372500&hl=en


does he still have a pony (http://www.stevenwright.com/index.shtml)?

[Drudgewire]

does he still have a pony (http://www.stevenwright.com/index.shtml)?

KBILLY's Super Sounds Of The 70s" continues. We just heard "The World Is A Ghetto" by War, and "Billy, Don't Be A Hero" by Bo Donaldson and the Haywoods.

And if you're the 12th caller, you'll win two tickets to the monster truck extravaganza being held tonight at the Carson Fairgrounds, featuring Big Daddy Don Bodein's truck, "The Bohemiath."

The 12th caller wins, on the station where the 70s survived, K. - B. I. L. L. Y.

[Drudgewire]

That was a good show. I've been to Baker's site a few times, and because you keep having to go back and forth between reading and looking at the picture then reading what you're supposed to be seeing and then watching the video just confused the bejeezus out of me.

So at least now I really understand what the "no planer" position is.

To be honest I actually feel sorry for Ace, because without explanation it would seem like a big "gotcha" moment. But once the long shot gets explained away the rest falls apart, and it just seems like he's never been able to process that.

The "far worse CBS footage" gave a crisper view of the surrounding buildings, the towers themselves, and a perfect view of the explosion with a camera which DIDN'T crap out during the money shot. The whole "didn't have to go at a constant speed" and debris explanations rely on the shots being rehearsed... as if basic post-production wouldn't have already eliminated the bugs he thinks are smoking guns.

Forget altering video, his argument literally requires altering all aspects of reality in order to buy into it. Bravo to the guys for being the only ones to advance any actual theory whatsoever, but I can understand why even other twoofers prefer to stay at arm's length.

[pomeroo]

That was a good show. I've been to Baker's site a few times, and because you keep having to go back and forth between reading and looking at the picture then reading what you're supposed to be seeing and then watching the video just confused the bejeezus out of me.

So at least now I really understand what the "no planer" position is.

To be honest I actually feel sorry for Ace, because without explanation it would seem like a big "gotcha" moment. But once the long shot gets explained away the rest falls apart, and it just seems like he's never been able to process that.

The "far worse CBS footage" gave a crisper view of the surrounding buildings, the towers themselves, and a perfect view of the explosion with a camera which DIDN'T crap out during the money shot. The whole "didn't have to go at a constant speed" and debris explanations rely on the shots being rehearsed... as if basic post-production wouldn't have already eliminated the bugs he thinks are smoking guns.

Forget altering video, his argument literally requires altering all aspects of reality in order to buy into it. Bravo to the guys for being the only ones to advance any actual theory whatsoever, but I can understand why even other twoofers prefer to stay at arm's length.


We are on the same wave-length. The reason I put Ace Baker on 'Hardfire' is that he is saying something. It happens to be complete rubbish, but he offers a narrative for the events of 9/11/01 and he's willing to defend his views. How many other twoofers can make such claims?

[Dog Town]

As in all twoofer lore.I love the complex / genius, and utter fail interlaced seamlessly. The NWO was smart enough to slow down the plane impact, and adjust the trajectory. Yet, stwoooopid, leaving a fauxplane in an extra frame ! Brilllllliant....

No NOSE, it was ejecta!

[Drudgewire]

We are on the same wave-length. The reason I put Ace Baker on 'Hardfire' is that he is saying something. It happens to be complete rubbish, but he offers a narrative for the events of 9/11/01 and he's willing to defend his views. How many other twoofers can make such claims?


Exactly. Again, fine work. :)

One other thing that should be mentioned as an explanation of why the video quality is so poor is unless your area's CW Network actually has a news team, the neighborhood FoxNews station's budget is so exponentially lower than the other networks' it's a almost a miracle the shot was in color.

[RKOwens4]

The so-called "nose-out" was captured in every single video in which that side of the building is visible. If it were truly a phantom glitch in the one shot in which the helicopter moves, it would only appear in the one shot. There would be no reason, according to Baker, for it to appear in shots where the camera were mounted on a tripod or in shots which weren't aired live for that matter (since presumably these shots could correct any nose-out mistakes before sending the video to be aired). Yet it does! In every single shot! This proves definitively that the debris exiting (whatever the debris is) is real. The NIST report shows a graphic of the starboard engine exiting through the corner of the building (the 45 degree section, which is about 11 feet wide and column-free), which bounced off of one or two buildings before landing blocks away. The ejecta could be the engine, it could be debris, it could be anything. The point is, it physically existed and wasn't some computer glitch. I wish Ace Baker were allowed to post here so we could discuss this further with him.

Excellent show nonetheless. Any idea when the next show will be available? Next Friday maybe?

[theauthor]

Exactly. Again, fine work. :)

One other thing that should be mentioned as an explanation of why the video quality is so poor is unless your area's CW Network actually has a news team, the neighborhood FoxNews station's budget is so exponentially lower than the other networks' it's a almost a miracle the shot was in color.

So the question remains; why won't WNYW release a broadcast quality tape of the shot?

[theauthor]

The so-called "nose-out" was captured in every single video in which that side of the building is visible. If it were truly a phantom glitch in the one shot in which the helicopter moves, it would only appear in the one shot. There would be no reason, according to Baker, for it to appear in shots where the camera were mounted on a tripod or in shots which weren't aired live for that matter (since presumably these shots could correct any nose-out mistakes before sending the video to be aired). Yet it does! In every single shot! This proves definitively that the debris exiting (whatever the debris is) is real. The NIST report shows a graphic of the starboard engine exiting through the corner of the building (the 45 degree section, which is about 11 feet wide and column-free), which bounced off of one or two buildings before landing blocks away. The ejecta could be the engine, it could be debris, it could be anything. The point is, it physically existed and wasn't some computer glitch. I wish Ace Baker were allowed to post here so we could discuss this further with him.

Excellent show nonetheless. Any idea when the next show will be available? Next Friday maybe?

Why was Ace Baker banned? He is probably the most eloquent and polite truther I have seen.

[Confuseling]

I wondered that myself. So I clicked a little button marked 'search'.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89339

[T.A.M.]

Why was Ace Baker banned? He is probably the most eloquent and polite truther I have seen.

you FORTUNATELY missed his rantings, and his diving off the deep end, but in the end, he was banned for, IIRC, repeated spamming of this forum with his diatribe from his site...

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

So the question remains; why won't WNYW release a broadcast quality tape of the shot?

you mean why won't they release it to a man, who upon further questioning (after his initial request, they inquired as to why he wished to have the footage, remember), divulged he wanted it to prove that NO PLANES HIT THE TOWERS!

hmmmm...I wonder.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

So the question remains; why won't WNYW release a broadcast quality tape of the shot?
Wow, you're a no-planer?

[16.5]

I'm sorry, I can't think of Ace-y without singing:

Who would fight the fight for the team?
Judy Wood, Judy Wood would.
Who thinks the Martians shot a big space beam?
Judy Wood, Judy Wood Would!

And then Judy and Ace broke up in the saddest break up in ever.

[theauthor]

you FORTUNATELY missed his rantings, and his diving off the deep end, but in the end, he was banned for, IIRC, repeated spamming of this forum with his diatribe from his site...

TAM:)

He was banned for posting his own work???

[theauthor]

Wow, you're a no-planer?

Asking why a station won't release footage makes me a no planer?

Did you notice I was replying to somebody who was talking about the poor quality of the video.

[LashL]

He was banned for posting his own work???


No, he was banned (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89328) because after being suspended for numerous breaches of the Membership Agreement, he was placed on probation for six months and then violated the terms of his probation by spamming the forum.

[WildCat]

Asking why a station won't release footage makes me a no planer?
In this context it does, as Ace is claiming it's all faked video.

Do you think all the video broadcast live on 9/11 was faked theauthor? Do you think any of the live broadcast was faked? Ace sure does!

Can you bring yourself to say that planes actually did hit WTC 1 and 2?

[pomeroo]

The so-called "nose-out" was captured in every single video in which that side of the building is visible. If it were truly a phantom glitch in the one shot in which the helicopter moves, it would only appear in the one shot. There would be no reason, according to Baker, for it to appear in shots where the camera were mounted on a tripod or in shots which weren't aired live for that matter (since presumably these shots could correct any nose-out mistakes before sending the video to be aired). Yet it does! In every single shot! This proves definitively that the debris exiting (whatever the debris is) is real. The NIST report shows a graphic of the starboard engine exiting through the corner of the building (the 45 degree section, which is about 11 feet wide and column-free), which bounced off of one or two buildings before landing blocks away. The ejecta could be the engine, it could be debris, it could be anything. The point is, it physically existed and wasn't some computer glitch. I wish Ace Baker were allowed to post here so we could discuss this further with him.

Excellent show nonetheless. Any idea when the next show will be available? Next Friday maybe?


No word yet. I hope it will be available within a week.

[pomeroo]

So the question remains; why won't WNYW release a broadcast quality tape of the shot?



They're hiding the fact that there were no planes and all 50-100,000 eyewitnesses were either hypnotized or work for the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy.

[Drudgewire]

So the question remains; why won't WNYW release a broadcast quality tape of the shot?

It's got their huge logo on it. The picture screws up right at the moment of intensity.

It's not something you want to put on your promo reel. It's kind of embarrassing, really.

[theauthor]

In this context it does, as Ace is claiming it's all faked video.

Do you think all the video broadcast live on 9/11 was faked theauthor? Do you think any of the live broadcast was faked? Ace sure does!

Can you bring yourself to say that planes actually did hit WTC 1 and 2?

Do you not think some intellectually honest people might want the station to release good quality footage so that Ace can be proved wrong?

i'm genuinely interested in your answer: How did my post "Why won't WNYW release broadcast quality footage?" in any way imply that I am a no planer?

[pomeroo]

Do you not think some intellectually honest people might want the station to release good quality footage so that Ace can be proved wrong?

i'm genuinely interested in your answer: How did my post "Why won't WNYW release broadcast quality footage?" in any way imply that I am a no planer?


Um, Ace has been proved wrong.

[theauthor]

It's got their huge logo on it. The picture screws up right at the moment of intensity.

It's not something you want to put on your promo reel. It's kind of embarrassing, really.

Good quality footage might finally shut ace up. I would have thought they would be happy to release it if it stops them being accused of complicity in mass murder.

[theauthor]

Um, Ace has been proved wrong.

I believe he is wrong, but I am not sure it has been proved. Your other guest made some great arguments.

[Drudgewire]

Good quality footage might finally shut ace up. I would have thought they would be happy to release it if it stops them being accused of complicity in mass murder.

They don't lose any more sleep over it than I do posting on this board of NWO agents. Appeasing crackpots is very rarely a good idea.

[Par]

Good quality footage might finally shut ace up. I would have thought they would be happy to release it if it stops them being accused of complicity in mass murder.


So, whenever someone baselessly accuses you of complicity in mass murder, you should do whatever they want in the hope that it’ll make them stop. That sounds like a rather pathetic and masochistic attitude to me.

[gumboot]

I feel sorry for Ace... he presented himself with such decorum he's to be applauded, but as I (and others) had demonstrated already on these forums, his theories are easily refuted.

I'm a filmmaker with only six years of industry experience compared with Steve Wright's twenty years, and yet even I find refuting Ace's theories to be fundamentally easy. He seems to me to be someone who understands the technological aspects of compositing, but has total ignorance of the camera and lens end of the equation (particularly basic lens theory), which is vital to his theory.

I had a friend like that at film school - a technological wizz who knew all about computer based effect technologies, video resolutions, and what have you, but understood very little about camera lens theory.

[A W Smith]

Good quality footage might finally shut ace up. I would have thought they would be happy to release it if it stops them being accused of complicity in mass murder.

NOTHING Will shut ace up. He is mentally ill. Why should they have to release their property to someone who has revealed to them that they are crazy and deluded? It is their property to do with as they choose. If they choose to respect the families of the victims by not releasing the film to some nut case in denial. So be it.

[stateofgrace]

Good quality footage might finally shut ace up.

But something like this is not enough ?

Back here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81890&page=3 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81890&page=3)

I asked Ace the following:

Ace, TS, or whatever you call yourself,

Could you please explain to me how the NWO, Government, or whoever you think made these videos also somehow implanted the images of 2 planes hitting the WTC in to my EYEBALLS!

See, I was there, and I personally witnessed both planes hitting the buildings.

I saw everything, EVERYTHING!

I saw it firsthand, not on video, not by description after the fact. I saw BOTH PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS!!!

Please explain how I saw what you say didn't happen.

Please, this I gotta hear.

I was a few hundred yards from WTC1 walking towards it when the first plane hit. I looked up when I heard an incredibly loud jet engine sound a second or two before the plane hit. It was so loud that the ground was vibrating and I actually felt the sound. Of course the crash and resulting explosion was even louder, but I'll never forget the sound of the jet. Its what made me look up. Then there it was, an American Airlines jet flying full speed in to the north tower.

So please tell me Ace, how did the big bad NWO not only implant images in to my eyeball, but also have the accompanying sound effects so perfectly staged?

The answer he gave was to run away and completely ignore me. Not at all a surprise, but still very telling.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2709530#post2709530

Maybe you can explain why "ACE" never answered this post.

[Corsair 115]

I believe he is wrong, but I am not sure it has been proved.Uh, just what kind of level of proof are you looking for? It would seem you must doubt the authenticity of the Apollo lunar landings if you have even a shred of doubt that Ace's "no planes" theory is untrue.

I had a friend like that at film school - a technological wizz who knew all about computer based effect technologies, video resolutions, and what have you, but understood very little about camera lens theory.Heh, my friend, who's a camera operator on filmed television programs, would tell you that a lot of directors understand very little about camera lenses (and a lot of other aspects of filmmaking)...

[negativ]

GUYS, PLEASE.

You must be more SERIOUS.

It is our duty to exude an aroma of intellectual sobriety at all times, apparently (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3689268&postcount=16).

the internet is srsbzns (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Serious_business), as they say. (note specific reference to JREF in linked article. I didn't do it!)

[Bobert]

Wow watching it now.
Ace didn't like it all when Ron brought up him being accused of being disinfo by his own people.
He squirmed, it was lovely!
He does come across as well spoken and more intelligent then most if not all of his peers.

[theauthor]

He didn't squirm, he just wanted to use the 28 minutes of the show to actually discuss evidence, rather than the soap opera that Jrefers would rather discuss.

[Bobert]

LOL WOW dude he squirmed brother.
That was an uncomfortable moment for him ant that WAS A SQUIRM.
I will say though that Ace is not as despicable as most of the leaders in the truth movement.

[~enigma~]

Wow, you're a no-planer?
Not what I would have said...

[T.A.M.]

He didn't squirm, he just wanted to use the 28 minutes of the show to actually discuss evidence, rather than the soap opera that Jrefers would rather discuss.

Sounds to me like you know him REALLY well, being able to read his mind and all, on what he was thinking, and the motive behind his body language.

He was banned for repeated spamming. Look up his suspension in forum management and argue it there...this is not the place.

TAM

Oh, and incidently, you are now officially a JREFer...

[Foolmewunz]

He didn't squirm, he just wanted to use the 28 minutes of the show to actually discuss evidence, rather than the soap opera that Jrefers would rather discuss.

Hark! Is that the sound of the other shoe falling?

[Brainster]

Great job in lining up Mr Wright to debunk Baker, Ron. I have posted this at SLC.

[Undesired Walrus]

Terrific stuff Ron, thanks.

However, I do think there was some video-fakery occuring on Hardfire, as having the recently convicted Suffolk serial-killer Steve Wright on was either a brave move or a super-imposed quest for ratings.

Hardfire-TV fakery!

[NickUK]

My observations:

Ron looks like he's lost weight! Video fakery? :confused:

Ace reminds me of a less hairy Weird Al Yankovic. Other than the fact that his arguments are loopy , I think he comes across as a nice enough chap (something I think Ron has commented on before).

When's the next one out?

[negativ]

It just flashed on me that Ace looks strangely similar to Allan Holdsworth, who is a god and shall not be mocked.

However, if Allan were to take a steel beam (or maybe a SynthAxe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SynthAxe)) and attach some dust to it, and then throw it over a cliff to see what happens, I would find a way to make a documentary about it and get rich & famous for 15 minutes. Or something.

[bonavada]

Ace does come over as a decent sort, evidently though his beliefs are easily debunked by those with real expertise related to his chosen CT niche.
Very interesting
Looking forward to the second half.

BV

[pomeroo]

My observations:

Ron looks like he's lost weight! Video fakery? :confused:



Unfortunately, there is neither fakery nor weight loss. You're just being kind.;)




Ace reminds me of a less hairy Weird Al Yankovic. Other than the fact that his arguments are loopy , I think he comes across as a nice enough chap (something I think Ron has commented on before).



Ace is a nice guy. I'd like to see his ban lifted. I don't know how to make a formal request, so this informal one will have to suffice.




When's the next one out?


Very soon.

[pomeroo]

Terrific stuff Ron, thanks.

However, I do think there was some video-fakery occuring on Hardfire, as having the recently convicted Suffolk serial-killer Steve Wright on was either a brave move or a super-imposed quest for ratings.

Hardfire-TV fakery!


What? We can feature Fetzer and the Loose Change boys, but we should draw the line at serial killers?

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Pomeroo, your my hero man! I swear you must have the patience of a saint, being from NY and not jumping across the table to strangle these jerks. Great job and I cant wait for part 2.

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo, your my hero man! I swear you must have the patience of a saint, being from NY and not jumping across the table to strangle these jerks. Great job and I cant wait for part 2.


Aw, you're making me blush!

Seriously, the opportunity of having someone as eminent in his field as Steve Wright appear on the show was hard to pass up. Ace Baker paid all the travel expenses for himself and Steve, which is a pretty damned impressive instance of putting one's money where one's mouth is.

[Par]

Ace Baker Vs. Steve Wright


Incidentally, I initially agreed with Mr. Roberts that having Ace Baker on the show would be ethically dubious and to some degree tawdry. However, after having seen it I’ve completely changed my mind. So, good work!

[mrbaracuda]

Good show pom! :) Looking forward to seeing the 2nd part.

[Blender Head]

Ace's faked video was so precious! :)

Good show, can't wait for the next installment.

[bonavada]

On another note. Ace Baker and Judy Wood no longer collaborating? a falling out?


Yes and it's all quite entertaining. I do so love to wallow in it when I witness these people turning on each other like this.
Have you listened to the mp3's of the shows? Judging by Judys attitude in the second show Fetzer is included in the schism.
The first show is a rather tedious affair with Ace and Uncle Fetz calling out Hutchisons work, but the second is Judy and Hutch being amusingly defensive.

1st Showhttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.29/t.gif (http://drjudywood.com/media/080227_ACE_0227082.mp3) 2nd Showhttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.29/t.gif (http://drjudywood.com/media/080228_JudyWood_Hutchison.mp3)


BV

[Sparky]

My observations:

Ron looks like he's lost weight! Video fakery? :confused:

Ace reminds me of a less hairy Weird Al Yankovic. Other than the fact that his arguments are loopy , I think he comes across as a nice enough chap (something I think Ron has commented on before).

When's the next one out?

I was thinking Geddy Lee myself.

[Hyperviolet]

Good show again, Ron.
Steve Wright really seems to know what he's talking about.

Thanks.

I'd just like to add that I found Ace's willingness to present his case admirable (going as far to pick up the tab for himself and Mr Wright).
If only other Truthers were as forthcoming.

Btw, regarding the previous Hardfire with Gravy and Arthur Scheuerman, is there a link to the 2nd part of that show (the call-in part)?

[Confuseling]

...Btw, regarding the previous Hardfire with Gravy and Arthur Scheuerman, is there a link to the 2nd part of that show (the call-in part)?

Unless there's been an update

The tape of the call-in show, unfortunately, is not available. ...

:(

[ElMondoHummus]

Aw, you're making me blush!

Seriously, the opportunity of having someone as eminent in his field as Steve Wright appear on the show was hard to pass up. Ace Baker paid all the travel expenses for himself and Steve, which is a pretty damned impressive instance of putting one's money where one's mouth is.

Amen! That was a completely stand-up thing to do. That should go down as a good act period, without reference to who did it.

Now, I'll never apologize for opposing Ace's hypotheses - I mean, c'mon, we all gotta agree they're pretty out there - but at the same time, there's something to be said for keeping the argument factual and not getting personal. Ace being a decent guy reminds me that I need to do the same.

[Mr. Skinny]

Amen! That was a completely stand-up thing to do. That should go down as a good act period, without reference to who did it.

Now, I'll never apologize for opposing Ace's hypotheses - I mean, c'mon, we all gotta agree they're pretty out there - but at the same time, there's something to be said for keeping the argument factual and not getting personal. Ace being a decent guy reminds me that I need to do the same.
(bolding mine)

It's good you can give him credit, regardless of which side of the debate you fall on.

I'd like to see more of that attitude around here.

[pomeroo]

Here is the second show featuring Ace Baker and Steve Wright:

http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=-2432158918700622833&hl=en

[Alt+F4]

Ron, I'm glad you called Ace Baker insane many times....because he is.

I'm having trouble working the JREF search engine, when I can I'll link to the posts where Ace Baker outright lied to support the crazy theories of his partner Judy Wood.

[RedIbis]

Good show, Ron. You get high marks for keeping the show on topic, being calm when Ace appeared a bit frantic, and bringing on a clearly qualified and persuasive expert in Mr. Wright.

Still, this is the lowest possible fruit you went after and it's not all that hard to debate a hypothesis as bizarre as no-planes. Next you'll be going after pod people.

[Undesired Walrus]

RedIbis, it is worth pointing out that Ron has asked many 'mainstream' truthers on his show, some who turned up, and most who did not.

Intimidated by his alter-ego 'Pomeroo' or not, he is 'going after' all kinds.

[Hyperviolet]

Thanks, Ron.
Damn, Steve Wright really seems to clean up these theories effortlessly.


And did Ace really just say that jet fuel has "almost no destructive power"!?
....

[Drudgewire]

I can't deny it, I like Ace. :)

Like I said in the other thread, I can sympathize with him for having what seems like very compelling footage that he's watched for years and being sure it's the real deal getting explained away with relative ease. That said, he listens to the other side patiently and doesn't interrupt which I would have thought was a trait alien to anyone in the truth movement.

And although he still frantically tries to find other explanations for the debunkable parts, I get the feeling he's more interested in hearing what's wrong with his video than he is with winning an argument. If nothing else, it gives him a new starting off point as he tries to find solid reasons the debunking may be debunkable.

Most importantly, he strikes me as genuine. Misguided? Sure. Maybe a little "off" even? Perhaps. But he's honestly looking for answers, instead of just "asking questions." If the truth movement was full of Ace Bakers instead of the :rule10heap of personalities at the top of it currently, they might have gotten somewhere (obviously I don't mean they would have proved it was an inside job because... yeah... but SOMETHING might have been uncovered that wasn't kosher. A SHRED of compelling evidence might have been presented, that's all I'm saying).


Oh, and part 2 was better than part 1 Ron and I loved part 1. Great job!

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, it is worth pointing out that Ron has asked many 'mainstream' truthers on his show, some who turned up, and most who did not.

Intimidated by his alter-ego 'Pomeroo' or not, he is 'going after' all kinds.

I recognize that. I've seen Ron put the word out for the more high profile twoofy twoofers. And therein lies the problem. It's going to be hard for anyone who is familiar with his attacks here to feel they're going to get a fair shot. True it is that Ron is a good and gracious host. I sincerely hope that people like Sanders Hicks or Paul Thompson would make an appearance and debate some topics.

"Sonny's Blues" is one helluva story.

[Alt+F4]

I can't deny it, I like Ace. :)

Did you notice the look on Ace Baker's face when Ron said that the passengers on UA175 are dead and that remains were found?

Disgusting.

[Drudgewire]

Did you notice the look on Ace Baker's face when Ron said that the passengers on UA175 are dead and that remains were found?

Disgusting.


I chalk it up to being traumatized by the evidentiary ass-whuppin' he'd just been recieved. :D

[Alt+F4]

I chalk it up to being traumatized by the evidentiary ass-whuppin' he'd just been recieved. :D

If Steve Wright ever decides to give up television, he would do great as a psychologist. His mannerism and delivery is so calm, logical and non-confrontational. Ace Baker got ass-whupped by a nice guy.

[pomeroo]

I recognize that. I've seen Ron put the word out for the more high profile twoofy twoofers. And therein lies the problem. It's going to be hard for anyone who is familiar with his attacks here to feel they're going to get a fair shot. True it is that Ron is a good and gracious host. I sincerely hope that people like Sanders Hicks or Paul Thompson would make an appearance and debate some topics.

"Sonny's Blues" is one helluva story.


Please understand that Griffin fled when Ryan Mackey published his devastating paper. Most people suspect that Griffin never intended to peddle his snake oil to an unsympathetic host, but Ryan's paper left him with no gracious exit. He had no choice but to turn tail and run.

[RedIbis]

Please understand that Griffin fled when Ryan Mackey published his devastating paper. Most people suspect that Griffin never intended to peddle his snake oil to an unsympathetic host, but Ryan's paper left him with no gracious exit. He had no choice but to turn tail and run.

I'm not familiar with the circumstances around why DRG didn't appear on your show. But I'll say again, the forum you present on Hardfire is effective and I do hope you are able to attract more high profile guests. I know Hicks is in Brooklyn and he tends to focus on the hijackers.

My only point is that your reputation here on jref precedes you and probably gives some of these people reason to be wary. You often come off like an extremist.

[pomeroo]

I'm not familiar with the circumstances around why DRG didn't appear on your show. But I'll say again, the forum you present on Hardfire is effective and I do hope you are able to attract more high profile guests. I know Hicks is in Brooklyn and he tends to focus on the hijackers.

My only point is that your reputation here on jref precedes you and probably gives some of these people reason to be wary. You often come off like an extremist.


No, I don't come off as an "extremist": I come off as a really nasty guy who despises twoofers. I should know--I created this persona. Of course, none of that explains why the leading lights of the fantasy movement should be so intimidated. I'm hardly the most knowledgeable debunker around, yet I'd cheerfully face down every fraud and charlatan running loose, confident that their ancient, discredited falsehoods can't stand scrutiny. The fact that the leaders of the fantasy movement are gutless frauds can't be denied.

[mrbaracuda]

If the truth movement was full of Ace Bakers instead of the :rule10heap of personalities at the top of it currently, they might have gotten somewhere

I agree. It's a refreshing change to see someone like him, even though he really seems to be somwhat weird in the head and the part of his little no-planer-collage was disturbing in regards to his mental state, heh. Most of his stuff later on is something I couldn't follow anymore on the basis of logic, especially the vortex - and I'm no professional in anything like explosions or aeronautics. Now, I think part one is better just because it doesn't have so much of a cornered ace baker whining / going a bit into twoofer-mode. :D

A person like Ron Wieck!

http://b.imagehost.org/0801/peoplelike.jpg

"Shame on you, Ron Wieck! Even though I am talking to you live and look you into the eyes, I shall not address you directly!"

That part was creepy and unnecessary. Still amusing though! :D
Anyway, appreciated again, pom, and I'd like to see more if you got more! :)
I especially liked the part about the "blackout", very interesting.

Oh and if Ace reads this: Kudos for appearing, your efforts and being so nice to pay the expenses.

[pomeroo]

I agree. It's a refreshing change to see someone like him, even though he really seems to be somwhat weird in the head and the part of his little no-planer-collage was disturbing in regards to his mental state, heh. Most of his stuff later on is something I couldn't follow anymore on the basis of logic, especially the vortex - and I'm no professional in anything like explosions or aeronautics. Now, I think part one is better just because it doesn't have so much of a cornered ace baker whining / going a bit into twoofer-mode. :D

A person like Ron Wieck!

http://b.imagehost.org/0801/peoplelike.jpg

"Shame on you, Ron Wieck! Even though I am talking to you live and look you into the eyes, I shall not address you directly!"

That part was creepy and unnecessary. Still amusing though! :D
Anyway, appreciated again, pom, and I'd like to see more if you got more! :)
I especially liked the part about the "blackout", very interesting.



Thanks to everyone! We had much more material, but, unfortunately, not enough time. Steve Wright prepared fourteen specific refutations and only managed to use six of them.

[mrbaracuda]

I've seen Ron put the word out for the more high profile twoofy twoofers. And therein lies the problem. It's going to be hard for anyone who is familiar with his attacks here to feel they're going to get a fair shot.

Oh please! Baker is familiar with his attack and he still felt like appearing and even paying Wright's flight from what I remember hearing. For some reason I doubt "feeling they're not going to get a fair shot" is the reason they won't appear on his show.

To quote pom:

their ancient, discredited falsehoods can't stand scrutiny. The fact that the leaders of the fantasy movement are gutless frauds can't be denied.


My only point is that your reputation here on jref precedes you and probably gives some of these people reason to be wary. You often come off like an extremist.

You know, I was shocked to find out he's the host of the show: He's so calm on the show! :D

[RKOwens4]

I’m sort of disappointed by Steve Wright’s explanation for the "fade to black", which is that the intensity of the explosion caused some kind of over-exposure in the camera. At least one of the live shots which also cut to black for a brief second after the impact wasn’t even pointed at the south tower, but was pointed entirely at the side of the north tower.

This has been discussed extensively here, but I’ve always been under the impression that the reason for the "fade to black" was that the impact of Flight 175 into the south tower caused a brief power disruption throughout the entire complex. The Evan Fairbanks shot likewise captured this power disruption, with the Burger King sign across the street going out for a brief second. This no doubt would have disrupted the signals being transmitted from the TV antenna on the north tower. Most New York news stations were recieving their signal through the TV antenna in some form or another, I believe. Residents have said that immediately after the crash of Flight 11, their TV's flickered for a brief second. One news station was knocked off the air immediately after the crash of Flight 11, which makes sense, as we'd expect to see the same kind of brief power outage affecting the TV signals after the crash of Flight 11 as well. This explains why the live shots not even pointed at the south tower were disrupted.

I'm glad Steve Wright debunked most points well, but I'm afraid that this is just going to give ammo to Ace Baker and the other no-planers who can then say, "Aha! Why didn't the explosion cause an over-exposure in all of the cameras, including the ones which weren't broadcasting live?"

[gumboot]

I sincerely hope that people like Sanders Hicks or Paul Thompson would make an appearance and debate some topics.


Given that Paul Thompson (that's not his real name by the way) lives in New Zealand, I'd say you're unlikely to see him appearing on a show in the USA. In any event, having seen him in 9/11 Press For Truth I think you'd be disappointed. He has nothing whatsoever to contribute to 9/11.

[DC]

well i have to admit, good show.
Steve Wright explained nicely.

[LashL]

Excellent work, Ron. Very nicely done, indeed.

[gumboot]

I’m sort of disappointed by Steve Wright’s explanation for the "fade to black", which is that the intensity of the explosion caused some kind of over-exposure in the camera. At least one of the live shots which also cut to black for a brief second after the impact wasn’t even pointed at the south tower, but was pointed entirely at the side of the north tower.

This has been discussed extensively here, but I’ve always been under the impression that the reason for the "fade to black" was that the impact of Flight 175 into the south tower caused a brief power disruption throughout the entire complex. The Evan Fairbanks shot likewise captured this power disruption, with the Burger King sign across the street going out for a brief second. This no doubt would have disrupted the signals being transmitted from the TV antenna on the north tower. Most New York news stations were recieving their signal through the TV antenna in some form or another, I believe. Residents have said that immediately after the crash of Flight 11, their TV's flickered for a brief second. One news station was knocked off the air immediately after the crash of Flight 11, which makes sense, as we'd expect to see the same kind of brief power outage affecting the TV signals after the crash of Flight 11 as well. This explains why the live shots not even pointed at the south tower were disrupted.

I'm glad Steve Wright debunked most points well, but I'm afraid that this is just going to give ammo to Ace Baker and the other no-planers who can then say, "Aha! Why didn't the explosion cause an over-exposure in all of the cameras, including the ones which weren't broadcasting live?"



Yes I was disappointed by this also. I think his conclusion makes sense based on the information he had available, but he might not have been aware that there were major broadcasting facilities in WTC1 which were interrupted by both aircraft impacts.

We discussed this thoroughly with Ace on the forum, and I notice he kept his old mistake in the video by citing a clip with video interference. The black out was not video interference but a loss of signal.

What's worth noting here is that the "fade to black" occurs in one frame - something that is impossible to perform manually (which is Ace's hypothesis). Based on the appearance of the "fading" frame, I personally think it's a result of the digitisation and broadcast of the video, and wouldn't be surprised if the original footage has a straight cut from full exposure to black in one frame.

I would tend to disagree with Steve Wright's analysis as the luminescence of the fireball is marginally lower than the background sky so would not result in a close down of the iris, let alone a complete closure.

[DC]

uups i thaught the fade to black was made by the Septemberclues makers.

[Brainache]

My favourite line in the show was: "Well that's the comment of a musician". After Ace said something stupid about the behaviour of exploding airplanes and office towers.

[mrbaracuda]

My favourite line in the show was: "Well that's the comment of a musician". After Ace said something stupid about the behaviour of exploding airplanes and office towers.

Heh yea, that's a goodie.

[gumboot]

I was also a bit disappointed that Steve Wright didn't discuss the resolution of the impact video in the last section.

Ace's claim that "we do not see any slowing down, any buckling..." etc is absurd on the face of it given the low resolution of the footage.

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

I see Ace Baker and the no-planers as a logical extension of the post-modernist view that we live in a world of simulations or SIMULACRA created by the media. The important thing to note about the concept of “simulacra” is that they are MEDIA GENERATED IMAGES, stored in our minds, of what actually took place or existed during an “historical” event. Indeed if Jean Baudrillard was alive today I am sure he would see the idea that no planes, (meaning no real aircraft), struck the Twin Towers as being consistent with the view that the events of 9/11 were TV spectacle – a movie or video if you will – based on a narrative generated after the event by TV “script” writers supposedly illustrating what actually took place. Thus the TV imagery of 9/11 is open to many interpretations depending on the fertility of your imagination. Under such circumstances, an Ace Baker was bound to pop-up post 9/11!

It is interesting to note that New Yorkers who actually witnessed the collapse of the towers right before their very eyes, (up-close and personal as they say), could only scream and wail in horror, (as a number of videos attest). However, I suspect that those of us who only saw the 9/11 images on a TV screen at a location very remote to New York City, only uttered a few mumbled words of surprise as we watched the impact and collapse simulations on TV ...... for simulations they were, (electron beam-induced), and will always be!

[theauthor]

Ace Baker: "Why doesn't it do that when the plane enters the shot?"

Pomeroo: tries to change subject

Steve wright: thats a very good question....



ROFL

[Brainache]

Ace Baker: "Why doesn't it do that when the plane enters the shot?"

Pomeroo: tries to change subject

Steve wright: thats a very good question....



ROFL

You think Ace may be on to something?

I think that should be our Nut barometer.

"Do you think Ace Baker could be on to something with all his video fakery research?".... If the answer is yes, it means that an intellectual vacuum has just entered the discussion.

[theauthor]

No.

If you notice, earlier in the thread, a debunker said he thinks steve was wrong with the gain control thesis.

[WildCat]

Still, this is the lowest possible fruit you went after and it's not all that hard to debate a hypothesis as bizarre as no-planes.
Do you admit that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, or are you still a no-planer? :rolleyes:

[pomeroo]

Ace Baker: "Why doesn't it do that when the plane enters the shot?"

Pomeroo: tries to change subject

Steve wright: thats a very good question....



ROFL


You're rolling on the floor laughing and you're not laughing at Ace???

Do you think I "changed the subject" because he had proved that no planes hit the Towers???

The question is often asked, just how stupid are conspriacy liars?

Well, how stupid are you?

[LashL]

...

Serious question, theauthor: Are you now or have you ever been Alexander (Ace) Baker?

[theauthor]

You're rolling on the floor laughing and you're not laughing at Ace???

Do you think I "changed the subject" because he had proved that no planes hit the Towers???

The question is often asked, just how stupid are conspriacy liars?

Well, how stupid are you?

You must admit his gain control theory fell a bit flat when Ace asked that question. It went unanswered.

It is possibly the most ridiculous theory of how the fade to black occured. Ace's theory is more likely and I think there were planes!

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

I see Ace Baker and the no-planers as a logical extension of the post-modernist view that we live in a world of simulations or SIMULACRA created by the media. The important thing to note about the concept of “simulacra” is that they are MEDIA GENERATED IMAGES, stored in our minds, of what actually took place or existed during an “historical” event. Indeed if Jean Baudrillard was alive today I am sure he would see the idea that no planes, (meaning no real aircraft), struck the Twin Towers as being consistent with the view that the events of 9/11 were TV spectacle – a movie or video if you will – based on a narrative generated after the event by TV “script” writers supposedly illustrating what actually took place. Thus the TV imagery of 9/11 is open to many interpretations depending on the fertility of your imagination. Under such circumstances, an Ace Baker was bound to pop-up post 9/11!

It is interesting to note that New Yorkers who actually witnessed the collapse of the towers right before their very eyes, (up-close and personal as they say), could only scream and wail in horror, (as a number of videos attest). However, I suspect that those of us who only saw the 9/11 images on a TV screen at a location very remote to New York City, only uttered a few mumbled words of surprise as we watched the impact and collapse simulations on TV ...... for simulations they were, (electron beam-induced), and will always be!


Excellent post, Frank!

[pomeroo]

You must admit his gain control theory fell a bit flat when Ace asked that question. It went unanswered.

It is possibly the most ridiculous theory of how the fade to black occured. Ace's theory is more likely and I think there were planes!


Steve Wright is a huge name in video compositing with two books to his credit.

Ace Baker is an enthusiastic amateur.

You know absolutely nothing about the subject.

So, the thoughts of a top professional are "ridiculous"? Do you see why people find your whole evil movement ridiculous?

Are you sure there were planes? Those 100,000 eyewitnesses could be lying, you know.

[theauthor]

I am sure there were planes, but Ace was far more convincing than Mr Wright. Can you answer that question? Why wasn't there an automatic iris adjustment when the plane entered the shot?

[theauthor]

I like the appeal to authority. Jowenko is a top professional yet you dismiss his views on building 7.

[WildCat]

I like the appeal to authority. Jowenko is a top professional yet you dismiss his views on building 7.
Oh, he's a top professional? Can you direct us to his detailed analysis of the WTC collapse? Oh yeah, all we have is a short interview with a truther after he was shown a silent video of the last few seconds of the collapse. :rolleyes:

[pomeroo]

I like the appeal to authority. Jowenko is a top professional yet you dismiss his views on building 7.


Jowenko is not a top professional: he has never demolished a large building. You, of course, dismiss his view on the Twin Towers. He doesn't know what he's talking about, right? Oh, I forgot--you dismiss the views of ALL demolition professionals on the Twin Towers.

[Par]

I like the appeal to authority. Jowenko is a top professional yet you dismiss his views on building 7.


Thankfully he’s not the only demolition expert in the word.

[Par]

You must admit his gain control theory fell a bit flat when Ace asked that question. It went unanswered.


Let’s say – for argument’s sake – that the gain theory is indeed wrong. Here’s my question: What was the gain theory intended to show?

[Jonnyclueless]

I believe he is wrong, but I am not sure it has been proved. Your other guest made some great arguments.

You're right because it's still possible that the 100s of 1000s of people who saw it with their own eyes could all have been mistaken. They better get on that higher quality version so we can all stop wondering....

[Par]

I am sure there were planes, but Ace was far more convincing than Mr Wright. Can you answer that question? Why wasn't there an automatic iris adjustment when the plane entered the shot?


Well, I can point out why it isn’t necessarily a problem for Mr. Wright’s argument, a priori. The argument Mr. Wright gave was in the form: If P then Q. P. Therefore Q.


If an exposure change has taken place (P), then a change in light levels has also taken place (Q).
An exposure change took place (P).
Therefore, a change in light levels had also taken place (Q).

When referring to the plane entering the shot, Mr. Baker then countered with an argument in the form: If P then Q. Not P. Therefore not Q.


If an exposure change has taken place (P), then a change in light levels has also taken place (Q).
An exposure change did not take place (Not P).
Therefore, a change in light levels also had not taken place (Not Q).

The problem is that arguments of this form commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/denyante.html

In short, Mr. Wright might have said that if an exposure change takes place, then change in light levels has also taken place. But that does not necessarily commit him to the notion that if an exposure change did not take place, then a change in light levels did not take place.

Mr. Baker needs to mind his Ps and Qs.

[Brainache]

It's also possible that the iris was already fully open, so that when the plane enters the shot the image is already as bright as the camera can make it.

Without knowing the specific settings of that particular camera during that particular shot, we can't know for sure, but my speculation is IMO far more likely than a team of secret live action video compositors.

[gumboot]

You must admit his gain control theory fell a bit flat when Ace asked that question. It went unanswered.

It is possibly the most ridiculous theory of how the fade to black occured. Ace's theory is more likely and I think there were planes!


I disagree.

Firstly, we don't know if the automatic iris adjusted to the appearance of the aircraft in the shot.

Secondly, we don't know if the automatic iris should have adjusted to the appearance of the aircraft in the shot.

Lastly, Steve Wright's explanation for the fade is entirely consistent with the mechanics of an automatic iris - I personally just do not believe it is the case in this instance, based on information other than the video. Ace Baker's contention, on the other hand, is physically impossible. Thus Ace's explanation for the "fade" is far less likely than Steve Wright's.

[gumboot]

Well, I can point out why it isn’t necessarily a problem for Mr. Wright’s argument, a priori. The argument Mr. Wright gave was in the form: If P then Q. P. Therefore Q.


If an exposure change has taken place (P), then a change in light levels has also taken place (Q).
An exposure change took place (P).
Therefore, a change in light levels had also taken place (Q).

When referring to the plane entering the shot, Mr. Baker then countered with an argument in the form: If P then Q. Not P. Therefore not Q.


If an exposure change has taken place (P), then a change in light levels has also taken place (Q).
An exposure change did not take place (Not P).
Therefore, a change in light levels also had not taken place (Not Q).

The problem is that arguments of this form commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/denyante.html

In short, Mr. Wright might have said that if an exposure change takes place, then change in light levels has also taken place. But that does not necessarily commit him to the notion that if an exposure change did not take place, then a change in light levels did not take place.

Mr. Baker needs to mind his Ps and Qs.



I don't think this is actually an accurate argument.

The automatic iris will always adjust to a change in lighting conditions, regardless of whether those conditions involve a drop in light or a rise in light. The only exception to this is if the iris is already fully closed and there is a rise in light, or if the iris is fully open and there is a drop in light. In the instance of the video in question we know the iris is not fully closed, and I do not believe it is fully open (and if it were fully open this would indicate the automatic iris is not functioning).

(For now let's ignore the presence of electronic gain)

In the logical argument: If P, Q. P, therefore Q this works, however in the fallacy not P therefore not Q this ignores that Q can exist independent of P.

(For example "if it rains I will get wet; It didn't rain therefore I'm not wet" ignores the possibility that I am wet because I went for a swim.)

However in the case of exposure versus lighting conditions, these two components are directly linked and one cannot happen independent of the other - thus the relationship is much better expressed:

Only if P, then always Q.

Thus to conclude; not P, therefore not Q, is accurate.

[gumboot]

It's also possible that the iris was already fully open, so that when the plane enters the shot the image is already as bright as the camera can make it.

Without knowing the specific settings of that particular camera during that particular shot, we can't know for sure, but my speculation is IMO far more likely than a team of secret live action video compositors.


I find this highly unlikely. To be honest I find the automatic iris argument relatively weak, primarily as it requires a surprisingly sensitive automatic iris.

In regards to the arrival of the aircraft in the frame, it is important to note that this occured only moments before the end of a camera zoom.

[Dave Rogers]

It is interesting to note that New Yorkers who actually witnessed the collapse of the towers right before their very eyes, (up-close and personal as they say), could only scream and wail in horror, (as a number of videos attest). However, I suspect that those of us who only saw the 9/11 images on a TV screen at a location very remote to New York City, only uttered a few mumbled words of surprise as we watched the impact and collapse simulations on TV ...... for simulations they were, (electron beam-induced), and will always be!

I'm not so sure about that, because the impact of those simulations on our lives can become more real than the direct experiences that so often fail to compete with them for interest and entertainment. I watched the Twin Towers fall on live TV from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, but it took me a couple of years before I could think of the events of the day without hearing in my mind the screams of the people trapped in the towers. I think the flip-side of the TV spectacle view of reality is that actual events and experience are devalued by comparison - that the unreal events we see on the screen appear to us more real than direct experience. From that point of view comes the other half of the Ace Baker line of reasoning, that hundreds of thousands of real eyewitnesses could have been fooled into thinking that they witnessed the actual airliner impacts because they then saw them on television.

Dave

[gumboot]

It is interesting to note that New Yorkers who actually witnessed the collapse of the towers right before their very eyes, (up-close and personal as they say), could only scream and wail in horror, (as a number of videos attest). However, I suspect that those of us who only saw the 9/11 images on a TV screen at a location very remote to New York City, only uttered a few mumbled words of surprise as we watched the impact and collapse simulations on TV ...... for simulations they were, (electron beam-induced), and will always be!


I think you're making some pretty gross generalisations about how people reacted to these events. Speaking of what videos attest - I'm sure we've all heard plenty of live news broadcasts from that day in which newsreaders screamed, wailed, cried, were speechless, swore, and so forth, expressing every imaginable variation of human reaction, upon seeing these "simulations".

In many ways, based on what I've observed, I'd contend that if anything, in some cases the television witnesses experienced greater emotional distress because they had a much better awareness of what was happening. In the second half of the Ace Baker debate we saw numerous examples of on-the-scene reporters and individuals who expressed confusion about what was happening - particularly during the aircraft impacts.

(Using the most extreme case - firemen who survived the collapse of WTC2 in the lobby of WTC1 had absolutely no idea that the building had collapsed even after coming outside)

I think you're also discounting the modern audience's motion picture literacy. We are conditioned - through a variety of filmic techniques - to suspend disbelief and pass beyond the "fourth wall" of the TV screen, to become directly involved emotionally in what we are witnessing. Indeed the entire notion of motion picture narration is built upon the assurance that this occurs. Those same techniques, and that same process of becoming a part of what we are watching occurs whether the material is fictional narrative, a wildlife documentary, a sports event, or something like the events of 9/11.

[chillzero]

I merged the threads, in case anyone (like me) was watching the first thread to get the link to the second video: and the topic is the same.

Good job keeping it all on topic, Ron, and also I'm very impressed with the exchange about calling him insane.

[Brainache]

I find this highly unlikely. To be honest I find the automatic iris argument relatively weak, primarily as it requires a surprisingly sensitive automatic iris.

In regards to the arrival of the aircraft in the frame, it is important to note that this occured only moments before the end of a camera zoom.

Yeah, I don't think my explanation is an accurate picture of what happenned in that shot, just that it is more likely than Ace's explanation, which involves teams of video effect composit artists working with real time video footage of the towers from every camera pointed in that direction from every network broadcasting the event live, OR at the very least total complicity from every member of every newsroon, controlroom presentation suite and master control room of every network, local and international, both on the day and for all the years since.

In fact Ace's little fantasy probably involves more people than that, but that's enough for starters...

[bje]

Pomeroo:

I see Ace Baker and the no-planers as a logical extension of the post-modernist view that we live in a world of simulations or SIMULACRA created by the media. The important thing to note about the concept of “simulacra” is that they are MEDIA GENERATED IMAGES, stored in our minds, of what actually took place or existed during an “historical” event. I and will always be!

But then "9/11 Truth" is itself a conspiracy to save post-modernism.

:wink8:

[pomeroo]

Here is Steve Wright's response. Perhaps someone can suggest a way for him to register?


Hi Ron,


I have given up on the byzantine procedure and 24 hour delay to register for JREF to post my response. Especially annoying was when I entered "Ronald Wieck" as my referrer, it responded�with "invalid referrer". �You, my friend, are invalid. Here is my response to RKOwens4 and �Gumboot's comment. If you would be so kind as to post it for me I would appreciate it.�






A power loss cannot possibly explain the brief dip to black. Certainly the crash did not kill power in the chopper transmitting the video. It obviously also did not disrupt power in the studio receiving the chopper video because it continued an�uninterrupted�broadcast of their logos and graphics over the black video. It was only the video signal from the chopper that went black.�


The other problem with the power outage theory is the type of picture breakup you would get with a power loss.�There is a fragile unbroken digital data stream from the chopper camera to the studio where the graphics and voice-over are added, then out to broadcast and the satellite uplinks. This digital signal would have broken up into meaningless digital noise instead of a coherent black image if it was due to power loss.�


Note that the reports of residents in the area reported that their TV flickered briefly at the time of impact. This makes sense, since both power and signal would have been disrupted for a moment and the TV's responded by flickering. But the chopper 5 video did not flicker. It did not loose sync. It dipped to black.�In the world of video, black is a picture, not a loss of signal.


The only possible conclusion is that, for whatever reason, the chopper video camera transmitted a black picture for several frames, then slowly recovered to normal brightness a second later. There was no loss of video sync between the chopper camera and the studio as the stable black image proves. This cannot be caused by a loss of power or signal. �My best explanation as to why the camera briefly transmitted a black picture is that the AGC (Automatic Gain Control) responded to the flare of bright light from the explosion and closed down the iris of the camera. This explosion is many times brighter than the sky even if it does not appear so on TV, and could easily have reached the threshold for the AGC to kick in.


Lastly I showed this clip to a video engineer. Not a guy who owns a video camera or cables up television stations, but a real B.S.E.E. video engineer that designs video cameras and video tape decks. It was his opinion that the black moment is best explained by the AGC. This is a highly technical issue that can only be determined by highly technical people, not popular opinion.�Show the video to a real video engineer and see what he says.


Steve Wright

[mrbaracuda]

Thank you Mr. Wright and pom.
Maybe you can set an account up for him, pom? Give him the account details then and he can change the mail / password himself.

[chillzero]

he needs to apply the same way as everyone else, I'm afraid, and this is really a topic for forum mgt if you continue to discuss it.

He should probably use your forum name as a referrer, but I'm not certain. There are currently a few accounts pending approval, but I can't see if he's one of them.

[A W Smith]

Plus the transmitter was on the north tower. Not the south which was hit during the chopper five video. Which becomes problematic for a transmitter power interruption. By then I would have assumed transmitter tasks were already transferred to the ESB back up transmitters after the north tower was hit..

[Corsair 115]

I'm wondering why this one particular bit of footage is so important considering all the many other videos and still photos there are of the impact. Images which were taken both by professionals and by amateurs.

[Par]

I don't think this is actually an accurate argument. The automatic iris will always adjust to a change in lighting conditions, regardless of whether those conditions involve a drop in light or a rise in light... in the case of exposure versus lighting conditions, these two components are directly linked and one cannot happen independent of the other - thus the relationship is much better expressed: Only if P, then always Q. Thus to conclude; not P, therefore not Q, is accurate.


If that is an accurate description of the behaviour of the mechanism (and I gather that you’re a valid authority, so I assume it is) then I see your point and you’re quite correct.

[bonavada]

I'm wondering why this one particular bit of footage is so important considering all the many other videos and still photos there are of the impact. Images which were taken both by professionals and by amateurs.

Ditto me. Does Ace dispute all footage and every photo out there of this event? What of the Naudet Bros work? My guess is that he would continue with his wanderlust in the the Valley of Woo whatever he is shown.

I was kinda wickedly hoping Pom would snipe him about his spat with Judy Wood. But ONTH Pom did well to keep Ace on track as it was. Refreshing to see a well-structured fair and civillised debate on CT.

Good stuff

BV

[gumboot]

Here is Steve Wright's response. Perhaps someone can suggest a way for him to register?


Hi Ron,


I have given up on the byzantine procedure and 24 hour delay to register for JREF to post my response. Especially annoying was when I entered "Ronald Wieck" as my referrer, it responded�with "invalid referrer". �You, my friend, are invalid. Here is my response to RKOwens4 and �Gumboot's comment. If you would be so kind as to post it for me I would appreciate it.�






A power loss cannot possibly explain the brief dip to black. Certainly the crash did not kill power in the chopper transmitting the video. It obviously also did not disrupt power in the studio receiving the chopper video because it continued an�uninterrupted�broadcast of their logos and graphics over the black video. It was only the video signal from the chopper that went black.�


The other problem with the power outage theory is the type of picture breakup you would get with a power loss.�There is a fragile unbroken digital data stream from the chopper camera to the studio where the graphics and voice-over are added, then out to broadcast and the satellite uplinks. This digital signal would have broken up into meaningless digital noise instead of a coherent black image if it was due to power loss.�


Note that the reports of residents in the area reported that their TV flickered briefly at the time of impact. This makes sense, since both power and signal would have been disrupted for a moment and the TV's responded by flickering. But the chopper 5 video did not flicker. It did not loose sync. It dipped to black.�In the world of video, black is a picture, not a loss of signal.


The only possible conclusion is that, for whatever reason, the chopper video camera transmitted a black picture for several frames, then slowly recovered to normal brightness a second later. There was no loss of video sync between the chopper camera and the studio as the stable black image proves. This cannot be caused by a loss of power or signal. �My best explanation as to why the camera briefly transmitted a black picture is that the AGC (Automatic Gain Control) responded to the flare of bright light from the explosion and closed down the iris of the camera. This explosion is many times brighter than the sky even if it does not appear so on TV, and could easily have reached the threshold for the AGC to kick in.


Lastly I showed this clip to a video engineer. Not a guy who owns a video camera or cables up television stations, but a real B.S.E.E. video engineer that designs video cameras and video tape decks. It was his opinion that the black moment is best explained by the AGC. This is a highly technical issue that can only be determined by highly technical people, not popular opinion.�Show the video to a real video engineer and see what he says.


Steve Wright


Thanks Pom for posting this,

I'd like to mention to Mr Wright that I agree on the technical issue point, but that I do have some technical expertise including a degree in filmmaking with specialisation in Production and Cinematography, and extensive experience both with studio and field video cameras, both digital and analogue.

(I don't mention this to make any challenge against Mr Wright's expertise as he has been working in the industry much longer than me and I willingly acknowledge that - I just wanted him to know I'm not a layman :))

I do not myself posit that the black frames are a result of a power outage, but due to a loss of signal - that is a total interruption (not interference) of the WESCAM signal at some point between the helicopter and the studio. I disagree with Mr Wright's contention that a loss of signal cannot result in a black frame - at a digital television studio use of an input channel which is not receiving a signal will typically result in a black screen. I've witnessed this first hand numerous times while working in studios conducting live mixing from multiple sources. Digital noise is a result of a broken or corrupted signal. A total loss of signal will not produce noise. This is in contrast to the analogue noise that most of us are familiar with (the "ants in a snow storm" black and white static) which will appear when no signal is being received. When no digital signal is being receive at all the image will display whatever the default "no signal" picture is - this is typically a black screen although in some cases it will be a bright blue screen.

With regards to the brightness of the explosion, this is probably something that would need to be assessed further using better quality footage, but my assessment of it is based on familiarity with a large number of videos of the impact of UA175 plus personal first hand experience with witnessing fuel-based fireballs.

I respectfully disagree that the explosion can be brighter than the sky even if it does not appear to be so on the screen - the AGC is monitoring exposure levels on the CCD and makes adjustments accordingly, and these same exposure levels are what produces the image itself. If the fireball is brighter than the sky this relationship will translate onto the image. I will agree that it's plausible that the sky can seem to be brighter at initial glance, which is why I feel this question would not be solved without higher resolution (and preferably original) images.

Having said that, if we have a hypersensitive AGC it's feasible that it detected a brief increase in brightness that may not have been captured on the video because it occured between fields (something that could be further exacerbated by the compression/transmission/rerecording etc of the video we see). For example we might be talking of an initial brief flash that was far brighter than the fireball itself. (And in fact the AGC could be responding to something else entirely, as is known to happen)

I want to reiterate that I do not reject the AGC explanation for the black out on the face of it. I have questions regarding the black out for two specific reasons:

1) I have had no experience with a camera that had an AGC this sensitive or quick to respond.
(And I have experience on some high quality cameras including Betacams and Panasonic's DVCPRO range)

2) We have other better exposed video of the impact of UA175 in which the same black out occurs at approximately the same time, but which cannot be explained by AGC due to the different exposure of the image.

I hope Mr Wright does decide to continue with the process of signing up here as I'd thoroughly enjoy discussing this matter further with him.

[Steve Wright]

After my arduous registration efforts I was surprised to find an email this morning that announced my registration was successful. I am reluctant to engage this forum because the entire no-plane thing is so utterly silly and a waste of time. I did the Hardfire show because the technical analysis part was an interesting problem, not because I am engaged in this controversy. However, Gumboot's points are thoughtful and worthy of a response. Below I offer some thoughts on some of Gumboot's points.


I do not myself posit that the black frames are a result of a power outage, but due to a loss of signal - that is a total interruption (not interference) of the WESCAM signal at some point between the helicopter and the studio. I disagree with Mr Wright's contention that a loss of signal cannot result in a black frame - at a digital television studio use of an input channel which is not receiving a signal will typically result in a black screen. I've witnessed this first hand numerous times while working in studios conducting live mixing from multiple sources.

When a digital video signal is lost the system will either freeze on the last good frame or automatically generate a black frame. They key to this process is time. The system switches to the black frame essentially instantly during the vertical interval of the video signal. That is not what this video does. This video actually takes 3 frames to drop to black, held black for 14 frames, then took 6 frames to restore full brightness. I have attached the second frame of the dip to black below for your inspection (I made it a png file so it would not get resampled by jpeg compression). One very interesting thing about this video frame is that you can see the scan lines of the two video fields, and one field is darker than the other field. This is proof that the brightness level of the camera is dropping rapidly, not a loss or even interruption of the signal.


I respectfully disagree that the explosion can be brighter than the sky even if it does not appear to be so on the screen - the AGC is monitoring exposure levels on the CCD and makes adjustments accordingly, and these same exposure levels are what produces the image itself. If the fireball is brighter than the sky this relationship will translate onto the image. I will agree that it's plausible that the sky can seem to be brighter at initial glance, which is why I feel this question would not be solved without higher resolution (and preferably original) images.

The same attached video frame contains a second critical clue. In my initial comments I said the fireball would have been much brighter than the sky but may not look so on video. What I didn't say was why. The reason is the limited dynamic range of the video camera meant that the fireball brightness would have been clipped (limited) by the camera electronics. Unless the camera were stopped down (darkened), in which case there would be enough "headroom" in the video signal for the fireball to appear much brighter than the sky. And that is exactly what you see in the attached video frame.


Having said that, if we have a hypersensitive AGC it's feasible that it detected a brief increase in brightness that may not have been captured on the video because it occured between fields (something that could be further exacerbated by the compression/transmission/rerecording etc of the video we see). For example we might be talking of an initial brief flash that was far brighter than the fireball itself. (And in fact the AGC could be responding to something else entirely, as is known to happen)

I want to reiterate that I do not reject the AGC explanation for the black out on the face of it. I have questions regarding the black out for two specific reasons:

1) I have had no experience with a camera that had an AGC this sensitive or quick to respond.
(And I have experience on some high quality cameras including Betacams and Panasonic's DVCPRO range)

2) We have other better exposed video of the impact of UA175 in which the same black out occurs at approximately the same time, but which cannot be explained by AGC due to the different exposure of the image.

We will probably never actually really KNOW what caused the blackout on this particular piece of video. The AGC reaction of video cameras varies by make, model, operator setup, and scene content. We cannot expect any two different cameras seeing the same event from different camera angles to have identical responses.

I do have an unfair advantage in that Ace Baker kindly provided me with his best quality version of the shot and I was able to examine it with powerful image analysis tools not available to most. For those that would like to assert it is something other than the AGC, I say again, show the clip to a real video engineer. His opinion is the only one that really matters.

Thanks for your comments Gumboot.
Steve Wright

[AZCat]

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Wright!

[Confuseling]

Hello Mr Wright! A very good performance - I thought you (all three!) were very polite, and very interesting (and sometimes it can be a hard balance!)

I was wondering whether you had any further ideas on Ace's question (about when the plane entered the shot) now you'd had a chance to think on it?

Also, can you (or anybody) point me to a link that explains the purpose of AGC shutting out completely, by any chance? The analogy you draw in the programme has me a little confused - eyes blink to protect themselves, in the case of very bright light from destroying the retina. Surely a camera doesn't need to shut its iris completely to protect its CCD? Are they that fragile?

Thanks.

[pomeroo]

Welcome to the JREF, Steve. I'd love to hear Shrinker's opinion of the shows.

[gumboot]

After my arduous registration efforts I was surprised to find an email this morning that announced my registration was successful. I am reluctant to engage this forum because the entire no-plane thing is so utterly silly and a waste of time. I did the Hardfire show because the technical analysis part was an interesting problem, not because I am engaged in this controversy. However, Gumboot's points are thoughtful and worthy of a response. Below I offer some thoughts on some of Gumboot's points.


Firstly, thank you for responding, and welcome to the forums. I appreciate your reluctance to engage in this forum - in my experience much of the claims made by proponents of alternative theories in relation to the 9/11 Attacks are utterly silly. The "no-plane" contention is one of the more silly, and one I think few people entertain. The unfortunate thing however is that some of their other equally silly claims actually sound reasonable to a layperson who is unfamiliar with the details - I think that's probably the main reason most of us engage in these debates.



When a digital video signal is lost the system will either freeze on the last good frame or automatically generate a black frame. They key to this process is time. The system switches to the black frame essentially instantly during the vertical interval of the video signal. That is not what this video does. This video actually takes 3 frames to drop to black, held black for 14 frames, then took 6 frames to restore full brightness. I have attached the second frame of the dip to black below for your inspection (I made it a png file so it would not get resampled by jpeg compression). One very interesting thing about this video frame is that you can see the scan lines of the two video fields, and one field is darker than the other field. This is proof that the brightness level of the camera is dropping rapidly, not a loss or even interruption of the signal.

Thanks for that sample. As expected a higher fidelity video always offers more information. I was under the impression that the fade to black occured over a duration of only two frames (one frame darkened, second frame completely black) which could be a result of copying and compression of the original video and alteration to frame rate, but the fact that the fade took longer (and in particular the duration of the fade back to full exposure) undermines this substantially.

The observation of the variance in exposure of the two fields likewise undermines this.



The same attached video frame contains a second critical clue. In my initial comments I said the fireball would have been much brighter than the sky but may not look so on video. What I didn't say was why. The reason is the limited dynamic range of the video camera meant that the fireball brightness would have been clipped (limited) by the camera electronics. Unless the camera were stopped down (darkened), in which case there would be enough "headroom" in the video signal for the fireball to appear much brighter than the sky. And that is exactly what you see in the attached video frame.

Again I'm in agreement on this point. In the videos I had been able to view (I had previously discussed this matter exhaustively with Ace on these forums) the sky exposure level appeared to be near the top of the exposure curve so I only had the single intermediate "fading to black" frame from Ace's low resolution video to assess and in this frame the fireball appeared to be of lower brightness than the sky.

Having been able to review this earlier frame which you have provided (and we can determine it is earlier as it is considerably lighter than the single "fading to black" frame I had seen) it is much clearer that the fireball is brighter than the sky. This would support my speculation that the fireball could have initiated with a brief brighter "flash" - a flash that is here visible in the frame you've provided but appeared to be absent from the single frame I had seen.



We will probably never actually really KNOW what caused the blackout on this particular piece of video. The AGC reaction of video cameras varies by make, model, operator setup, and scene content. We cannot expect any two different cameras seeing the same event from different camera angles to have identical responses.

This is certainly true.


I do have an unfair advantage in that Ace Baker kindly provided me with his best quality version of the shot and I was able to examine it with powerful image analysis tools not available to most.

As expected a better quality video will always provide more information, and this case is no exception. Thank you for providing the sample frame - it clears up a lot of questions and I now tend to agree with your conclusion that the black out was a result of the AGC.

[gumboot]

Also, can you (or anybody) point me to a link that explains the purpose of AGC shutting out completely, by any chance? The analogy you draw in the programme has me a little confused - eyes blink to protect themselves, in the case of very bright light from destroying the retina. Surely a camera doesn't need to shut its iris completely to protect its CCD? Are they that fragile?


It's pretty common for an AGC to over compensate and either over expose or under expose in the event of a sudden change in light levels. I think this has more to do with the mechanics of the motor driving the auto iris than anything else.

It also depends how the AGC is monitoring exposure levels - if it's set to manage average exposure a sudden change in a small part of the screen won't have a big impact but if it's set to manage peak exposure a sudden change in a small part of the screen can result in the aperture being closed down a very long way.

If the aperture is already closed right down (say F22 or F16) this might result in it shutting off completely.

It's not really about protecting the CCD - the camera is trying to provide the "best fit" exposure because video has a quite limited contrast range compared to film and in particular compared to the human eye. When the contrast range (that is the difference between the brightest and darkest parts of the screen) significantly exceeds the CCD's contrast range this can cause problems with the camera and result in a white out or black out of the frame.

Similar things happen in regards to focus when dealing with cameras that have an auto focus - if the content in the frame substantially exceeds the limits of the camera's abilities you will get the camera "fishing" between focal points.

[Confuseling]

That makes sense - thanks.

[Stupid]

I was wondering whether you had any further ideas on Ace's question (about when the plane entered the shot) now you'd had a chance to think on it?

Thanks.

I don't know the video camera's involved, nor the possible auto-exposure settings.
But in a still digital camera there are often several auto-exposure matrices that set exposure based on a defined area of the image...
spot
center weighted
matrix
etc...

Is it possible that because of a center-weighted type setting, the plane entering from the edge of the image did not cause or "trigger" a response of the iris ?
This might also help explain the "fireball" dip-to-black, in that the exposure setting may be reading action within a specified field (center-weighted or other)...and not the vast amount of sky near the image's edges.

And remember, when exposing for a back-lit image, the iris is opened a bit more than normal (manual or automatic), in order to get proper exposure of the intended image.....in other words, it's set for proper exposure of the buildings, not the sky. So any bright flash might trigger a more reactive (or, over-reactive) adjustment by the AGC.

---------
Now the next theory I have...is just a theory (and can be separated from my wonderful thoughts above), and I have no information to back it up.

I noticed, and so did Mr Wright, that when the nose touched the side of the building, the iris changed.....but only when it touched, not a moment before, (at least to my eyes).
Digital exposure is undoubtedly many complicated algorithms.
Could one of those algorithms be that, the camera's exposure is not just based around the total amount of dark(and/or light)...but, the amount of connected dark (or connected light, if you will) ?
So that any peripheral objects not connected to the main shape, are not exposure-compensated for? ...and when the plane's dark nose melts with the dark main shape (the buildings)...total area of the main shape is increased, and then compensated for. ???
Just an idea.

=S=

[The Doc]

Very nice work as usual Ron. One of the best debates so far. It was good to see that everyone stayed on topic, and that no one was talking over each other :)

Mr. Wright did a fantastic job. He came off as someone who really knows his stuff, and someone who is greatly more intelligent than Ace.

[A W Smith]

I don't know the video camera's involved, nor the possible auto-exposure settings.
But in a still digital camera there are often several auto-exposure matrices that set exposure based on a defined area of the image...
spot
center weighted
matrix
etc...

Is it possible that because of a center-weighted type setting, the plane entering from the edge of the image did not cause or "trigger" a response of the iris ?
This might also help explain the "fireball" dip-to-black, in that the exposure setting may be reading action within a specified field (center-weighted or other)...and not the vast amount of sky near the image's edges.

And remember, when exposing for a back-lit image, the iris is opened a bit more than normal (manual or automatic), in order to get proper exposure of the intended image.....in other words, it's set for proper exposure of the buildings, not the sky. So any bright flash might trigger a more reactive (or, over-reactive) adjustment by the AGC.

---------
Now the next theory I have...is just a theory (and can be separated from my wonderful thoughts above), and I have no information to back it up.

I noticed, and so did Mr Wright, that when the nose touched the side of the building, the iris changed.....but only when it touched, not a moment before, (at least to my eyes).
Digital exposure is undoubtedly many complicated algorithms.
Could one of those algorithms be that, the camera's exposure is not just based around the total amount of dark(and/or light)...but, the amount of connected dark (or connected light, if you will) ?
So that any peripheral objects not connected to the main shape, are not exposure-compensated for? ...and when the plane's dark nose melts with the dark main shape (the buildings)...total area of the main shape is increased, and then compensated for. ???
Just an idea.

=S=

thats a good idea. which would explain why the iris doesn't change when the plane enters the frame from the right. perhaps the iris ignores the plane because it has insufficient total area. But when combined with the area of the buildings it no longer ignores it.

[Shrinker]

Welcome to the JREF, Steve. I'd love to hear Shrinker's opinion of the shows.

Well Ron, despite being pretty bogged down in a lot of my own video fakery I managed to grab a few moments to watch some snippets of the shows.

First of all I'm impressed that Mr. Steve Wright got involved. He's certainly more far more renowned than I am in this industry, and secondly I was very entertained to find Mr. Wright's explanation for his interest in the topic was word-for-word what I would have said. We just love solving puzzles!

I thought generally the programmes were very interesting. It was great to get some actual hands-on video analysis performed in the studio. It was also great to see Ace in the flesh. Certainly he wasn't at all what I was expecting, and I'm still left completely unable to figure him out. His fake video was quite neat, but his illogical post-hoc rationalisation about the timing problems were frustrating to watch. It made so little sense that I don't think Steve could quite keep up!

I think, as usual, the debunking side ended up looking a little frustrated, which kinda plays to both sides. It seems the bigger the expert the less prepared they are for some spectacular wrongisms.

The enduring mystery seems to be the fadeout. The AGC theory sounds plausible to me, however I'm not aware of any suitably bright flash appearing in any of the other videos of the crash. I think it's a great explanation to throw into the mix, but I'm not surprised that those who have regrettably had to view these events over and over from every angle, are not convinced that it is the true explanation in this case.

Personally I don't have a lot of experience with the type of signal processing Steve's engineer is no doubt an expert in, so I wouldn't dream of contradicting him. I do however know that there are many pieces of equipment that our TV signals go through before they reach us. Most of them are unknown to the general public, most of them quite obscure to me, and all of them quite happy to perform a multitude of interesting failures of one type or other. For the picture to go black, during a power spike really shouldn't be a surprise, even if we can't pin down an exact cause.

I also wonder if poking around in all these signals and electronics is missing a trick. Maybe at the point of impact, somebody just freaked out. Maybe hit a button he or she shouldn't have - on the camera, in the helicopter, in the gallery, or wherever. I always imagine during coverage like this, there's somebody hovering over a button to cut the picture if something horrific happens. Who knows.

[yodaluver28]

I was at home in my living room when the attacks began. I was watching the news coverage of Tower 1 on fire when the second plane deliberately rammed into Tower 2. My coffee cup fell out of my hand and crashed to the floor, shattering it into a million pieces, and my knees literally gave out from under me. I watched in a stunned silence for nearly 30 minutes until they broke in with photos of the smoldering Pentagon and I began weeping because I knew in my bones what had just happened and that thousands of people had been killed or were about to die in NYC and DC, that it was no accident, and might not even be over yet. I even prayed for the first time in I don't even know how many years just because I couldn't bear feeling so helpless and couldn't think of any else I could do.

I do agree that no-planers are an almost inevitable product of a media drenched society in which many people have become so incredibly de-sensitized by the images they've seen over the years, both real and fictional, that they are almost incapable of discerning fact from fiction and have developed a deep cynicism and almost pathological lack of empathy. But I do think they are an extreme minority. Alot of people do suffer from crisis-fatigue from hearing about and seeing so many atrocities all over the world every day that they can't fix but most people still do understand it as concrete reality and have feelings for the people who've suffered great hardship. I think the number of people who watched the towers collapse live and felt the same way they feel when they see something similar in a movie is very small indeed. Most people still know the difference.

[mrbaracuda]

I was at home in my living room when the attacks began. I was watching the news coverage of Tower 1 on fire when the second plane deliberately rammed into Tower 2. My coffee cup fell out of my hand and crashed to the floor, shattering it into a million pieces, and my knees literally gave out from under me. I watched in a stunned silence for nearly 30 minutes until they broke in with photos of the smoldering Pentagon and I began weeping because I knew in my bones what had just happened and that thousands of people had been killed or were about to die in NYC and DC, that it was no accident, and might not even be over yet. I even prayed for the first time in I don't even know how many years just because I couldn't bear feeling so helpless and couldn't think of any else I could do.

:(

* mrbaracuda pats

:)

[gumboot]

I don't know the video camera's involved, nor the possible auto-exposure settings.
But in a still digital camera there are often several auto-exposure matrices that set exposure based on a defined area of the image...
spot
center weighted
matrix
etc...

Is it possible that because of a center-weighted type setting, the plane entering from the edge of the image did not cause or "trigger" a response of the iris ?
This might also help explain the "fireball" dip-to-black, in that the exposure setting may be reading action within a specified field (center-weighted or other)...and not the vast amount of sky near the image's edges.

This is quite true - there's various ways an AGC will be monitoring exposure, and we can't assume that the given setup would result in a response from the appearance of the aircraft. It may not even be as simple as the type of camera - I've used numerous professional digital camcorders in which you could change how the AGC responded.




I noticed, and so did Mr Wright, that when the nose touched the side of the building, the iris changed.....but only when it touched, not a moment before, (at least to my eyes).

I believe it changed after the aircraft had fully passed into the building, however as I'd mentioned previously AGCs often have quite a delay on them, so in reality the change in light conditions that caused the exposure change (and of course we're assuming that's what we saw when the aircraft entered the building) could have happened at some point prior.



Digital exposure is undoubtedly many complicated algorithms.
Could one of those algorithms be that, the camera's exposure is not just based around the total amount of dark(and/or light)...but, the amount of connected dark (or connected light, if you will) ?
So that any peripheral objects not connected to the main shape, are not exposure-compensated for? ...and when the plane's dark nose melts with the dark main shape (the buildings)...total area of the main shape is increased, and then compensated for. ???
Just an idea.

This, to be honest, sounds a bit too clever. Having said that, a lot of digital cameras, in their exposure, do monitor exposure across the frame and can also display this as a line graph. Picture the CCD as a grid of light sensitive cells consisting of both columns and rows. The graph displays horizontally with each column being a step in the graph (so if the CCD is 100 cells across the graph has 100 discrete points on the line). Each value on the graph represents the average exposure for all of the cells running vertically down that entire column, and the graph displays this on the Y axis (higher up the Y axis = brighter average exposure, lower on the Y axis = darker average exposure). So if we pretend the CCD is 100x100, we get to the first column and of those 100 cells in the first column, it works out at an average exposure of 50% (exactly half way between the maximum and minimum exposure the camera can handle) so the first point on the graph is exactly half way up the Y axis. And so on across the frame.

This gives the camera a much better idea of the average exposure across the picture. In this instance a dark object moving horizontally across a light background to another dark object could have an impact on the AGC once it makes contact with the other dark object, because now that graphs going to show a concentration of darker average exposure in the middle of the frame.

[Steve Wright]

Ace did make a good point during the video fade to black discussion. I hade noticed a slight drop in brightness just as the plane touched the tower and suggested that it was a sign of the AGC making a small adjustment due to the small change in brightness caused by the plane disappearing behind the tower. Ace rightly observed that if the AGC was responding to the plane disappearing, why did it not respond when the plane entered the frame? Good point, Ace.

After considering the issue further, I now think that the small brightness drop just as the plane started to go behind the tower was a coincidence and was not caused by the AGC. The critical clue, once again, is time.

The slight brightness drop was on the exact frame that the plane started to be covered by the building. The AGC circuits take a brief moment to respond, but this was instantaneous. I no longer think that this slight brightness drop was caused by the AGC. The larger dip to black however, had the exact type of time delay and response typical of a panicky AGC.

The nice thing about being objective is that you don't "own" the problem. If the facts or their analysis point in a new direction, then you go that way. I also think that far too much has been invested in this dip to black issue. While it is pointed to with a lusty "AHA!" by the no-planers, there is no sensible suggestion of how this black video moment contributes in any way to a conspiracy. Its just a "gotcha" proving nothing. Let us move on.

Steve Wright

[Jonnyclueless]

I thought that the blackout was due to the transmission going through the antenna on the tower which got cut. And that the blackout was the relays switching over.

[gumboot]

The nice thing about being objective is that you don't "own" the problem. If the facts or their analysis point in a new direction, then you go that way. I also think that far too much has been invested in this dip to black issue. While it is pointed to with a lusty "AHA!" by the no-planers, there is no sensible suggestion of how this black video moment contributes in any way to a conspiracy. Its just a "gotcha" proving nothing. Let us move on.


This is one of the most succinct and accurate summaries of the 9/11 Truth debate I've ever come across. I'm going to nominate this remark.

For Mr Wright, the forums have something called "The Language Award" which is a monthly competition we run (I don't think you actually get a prize or anything). All members of the forum are allowed to nominate any post by another member that they feel is an excellent piece of writing, a particularly insightful observation, etc.

[A W Smith]

I thought that the blackout was due to the transmission going through the antenna on the tower which got cut. And that the blackout was the relays switching over.

but the transmitter was on the other (north) tower

[gumboot]

but the transmitter was on the other (north) tower


It wasn't just a case of a transmitter, the 110th floor had broadcasting facilities for virtually every NY area broadcaster, and as we know from eyewitness counts both impacts caused power outages in both towers.

[Steve Wright]

This is one of the most succinct and accurate summaries of the 9/11 Truth debate I've ever come across. I'm going to nominate this remark.

For Mr Wright, the forums have something called "The Language Award" which is a monthly competition we run (I don't think you actually get a prize or anything). All members of the forum are allowed to nominate any post by another member that they feel is an excellent piece of writing, a particularly insightful observation, etc.


Gosh, thanks Gumboot. Glad to hear that you like my word usements.

Steve Wright

[Confuseling]

...
The nice thing about being objective is that you don't "own" the problem. If the facts or their analysis point in a new direction, then you go that way. I also think that far too much has been invested in this dip to black issue. While it is pointed to with a lusty "AHA!" by the no-planers, there is no sensible suggestion of how this black video moment contributes in any way to a conspiracy.


It is no doubt a good post! But I fear if these are your hopes...


Its just a "gotcha" proving nothing. Let us move on.

Steve Wright


...then your stay here will be a brief one. :(

[Jonnyclueless]

Still trying to follow Ace's logic.

It was composite real time, yet they were detailed enough to slow down the plane to recreate the speed change from impact. Yet they were not detailed enough to prevent the composite from coming out the other side. yet they were quick enough to create a black out in real time because they noticed it in real time. Yet they still weren't fast enough to actually do it right. Because it was prepared in advance yet flawed because it was done in real time.

How is he not cross eyed after thinking that through?

[Brainache]

...

How is he not cross eyed after thinking that through?

Actually, ... I think if you look closely, ...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If the aperture is already closed right down (say F22 or F16) this might result in it shutting off completely.



Except that there were no F-16's or F-22's in New York that day, Cheney had the air force on stand down, remember?



:D

[Jonnyclueless]

Can anyone do an experiment with a camera to demonstrate the effect of the aperture closing down from a sudden bright light?

[pomeroo]

It is with a heavy heart that I must report that my hopes for Ace's acceptance of reason and evidence have been dashed. Although Steve Wright hinted that Ace might be rethinking his position, it turned out to be misplaced optimism. Ace is back with his nonsensical "ghostplane."

A problem pointed out by Steve is that Ace wants to use the lessons taught by Wright to improve his video fakery skills. Bear in mind that while most twoofers are extremely stupid and lack intellectual curiosity, Ace, by contrast, is quite intelligent and, sadly, will stop at nothing to promote his fantasy.

How long before the crude YouTube hoaxes created by agenda-driven dunces are replaced with a more sophisticated product?

[pomeroo]

Still trying to follow Ace's logic.

It was composite real time, yet they were detailed enough to slow down the plane to recreate the speed change from impact. Yet they were not detailed enough to prevent the composite from coming out the other side. yet they were quick enough to create a black out in real time because they noticed it in real time. Yet they still weren't fast enough to actually do it right. Because it was prepared in advance yet flawed because it was done in real time.

How is he not cross eyed after thinking that through?


Very succinctly put and right on the money!

Sadly, Ace does not care. He waves away all obstacles to his crippling delusion.

[pomeroo]

You're rolling on the floor laughing and you're not laughing at Ace???

Do you think I "changed the subject" because he had proved that no planes hit the Towers???

The question is often asked, just how stupid are conspriacy liars?

Well, how stupid are you?


UPDATE:

I consider it poor form to respond to one's own posts, but my last question has been answered. As "theauthor" is almost certainly the ineffable p-doh, well, 'nuff said.

[gumboot]

Except that there were no F-16's or F-22's in New York that day, Cheney had the air force on stand down, remember?



:D


Funnily enough I thought the same thing when I posted that...

And your username has just reminded me to chase up my next potential film job... you didn't name yourself for Terry Goodkind's books did you by chance?

[david carmichael]

Well, well well!

Gumboot & Ron Weick(pomeroo) in the same thread!!! Splendid!

This is tokyo_dave_paton using his "david carmichael" nom-de-plume.


Ron Weick...you sound SO SINCERE in those Hardfire videos

Is it "false sincerity"?

Could I demonstrate that to THE RICHFIELD,OHIO Police Department using your comments about Gumboot "refuting my claim completely"?

Ron Weick...when Stephen Wright was asked what shape/form the ejected dust/concrete/drywall/choclate fudge/whatever took the form of....what was his answer?

Simon Shack stated it was a "micro-precison [pixelization] match" to the nosecone of a jetliner...100%

If not a "microprecison match" of 100% ...please tell Rush Limbaugh-loving & Israel supporting Richfield Police Officers Simmons & Michel AS WELL AS Police Sergeant, Lou Testa...what percentage match is it??

95%???

85%???

What shape/form is it, Ron Weick?...and where did either YOU or the expert Stephen Wright answer that when Ace Baker(TruthSeeker1234) asked that question...

Ron Weick...can you hyperlink me to the thread where we can discuss the MOSSAD AGENTS who predicted the future and explain WHY you refused to provide the Mineta Report hyperlink and/or the NYPD audio dispatch to the Richfield Ohio Police Department when asked to do so in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group?

GUMBOOT...is this a pro-Zionist "debunkers forum" or a pro-Zionist "disinformers forum"?

You'll get a chance to back your scholarship before Sergeant Testa...because he took that doctored IDF Photo to the Richfield Law Director...

...you can set him on the straight path IF I SUPPOSEDLY misled him, correct?

I thought so...don't disappear, Gumboot...don't disappear like you did when asked if you would encourage Donald Ackerman to back your scholarship.

The folks at the Sports Handicappers Site SBRFORUMS Politics section have been promised by me that those future-predicting MOSSAD AGENTS will pick 100% pointspread winners this year AS WELL AS the winning lottery numbers each week from this nation's lotteries.


Ron Weick...when will the Ace Baker #1 video become available again?... after showing the Richfield Police your SINCERITY in the USS Liberty e-mail postings ...I want to analyze that FIRST VIDEO for them minute-by-minute TO DEMONSTRATE the interaction between Stephen Wright & Ace Baker & perhaps you...

...when Ace Baker asked Stephen Wright what shape/form the ejected debris/dust took?

Everybody, to the best of my knowledge, has refused to answer that question

Go to VINDYdotCOM Politics Forum to see my tokyo_dave_paton thread...you're mentioned there Ron Weick....you're also mentioned at the SBR sportsbook review forums

[Brainache]

Let me just check my Nutbar-ometer to see what we're dealing with here... Dang, no good, it just exploded. Curiously the explosion formed the exact shape of a cabbage. A bit suss, I reckon...

[david carmichael]

Firstly, thank you for responding, and welcome to the forums. I appreciate your reluctance to engage in this forum - in my experience much of the claims made by proponents of alternative theories in relation to the 9/11 Attacks are utterly silly.

How silly, Gumboot?

As silly as the Mineta Transportation Report referencing ISRAELI MOSSAD AGENTS who could predict the future?

Ron Weick didn't tell Steve Wright about that when he asked him onto the HardFire show, did he?

Gumboot...do you mind if we ASSOCIATE your "credibility" in these threads as a whole ...with the "intellectual honesty/dishonesty" in your USS Liberty photo work?

Not just for the benefit of Stephen Wright BUT ALSO Richfield, Ohio Police Sergeant Lou Testa & Officers Simmons & Michel


Did Ron Weick INFORM Stephen Wright prior to his appearance on the show..."Hey, Steve!... I just want to warn you ahead of time that there's an NYPD Radio Dispatch I was too afraid to provide to the Richfield, Ohio Police Department...

..and Hey, Steve... in the attempted US Government coverup of that event....they sort of GENERICALLY attempted to hide the identity of those MOSSAD AGENTS as "men of middle eastern descent"....

...but hey, Steve...they were STUPID ENOUGH to reference the MOSSAD AGENT's ability to predict the future in that report...

...so Steve, do you still want to participate in my HardFire show?...becuase this was an "act of war" against the US Flag , Steve"

[Brainache]

Are you talking about the "Dancing Israelis"?

[david carmichael]

Let me just check my Nutbar-ometer to see what we're dealing with here... Dang, no good, it just exploded. Curiously the explosion formed the exact shape of a cabbage. A bit suss, I reckon...

Well, Stephen Wright.... in an "act of war" against the US Flag and with Squad 3 of the Cleveland, Ohio FBI & the Richfield, Ohio Police Department looking


....we have the nose-out as

1) nosecone of a jet liner
2) cabbage

Stephen Wright... Josef Goebbel's was the NAZI propoganda minister...if he asserted "free speech" rights at Nuremburg... it didn't work.

Go to VINDYdotCOM Political Forums, Steve....the strategy is to have the bad guys bite off more than they can ever possibly hope to chew.


So, Steve Wright...when Ace Baker asked you what shape/form the ejected debris took the form of, what was your answer?

I mean you didn't avoid answering the question, did you?

..with someone proclaiming a "microprecison match"?

Ask GUMBOOT to encourage the students of Revere High School in Richfield, Ohio to back his scholarship, Steve & ask him to hyperlink you to what he did when he was asked to have Donald ackerman back his scholarship

What was your answer to Ace Baker's question, Steve...point us to the minute/second where that exchange occurred

Are you sure you want to CONTINUE to associate with Ron Weick, Stephen Wright?

Have him provide you the hyperlink to that NYPD Dispatch & ask him what he did in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group when I included the Richfield,Ohio Police Deparment as an addressee

[Jonnyclueless]

I assume David was trying to make a point, but who knows...I'm sure it was convincing to him...

Can someone convert his posts into english grammar?

[david carmichael]

Are you talking about the "Dancing Israelis"?

Your good buddy, Ron Weick can provide you with the answer,pal...

He was carping about Mark roberts and WTC7 being a Pulitzer-prize winning story until I gave him a REAL pulitzer-winner

I'm talking about:
a) an NYPD dispatch
b) and Mineta Transportation Report where the Israeli MOSSAD AGENTS predicted the future & their identity was attempted to be hidden by referring to them generically as "men of middle eastern descent"

Why...are you talking about Sylvan Kurzberg getting a photo of himself with a cigarette lighter/

I do seem to recall somethinggggg about that... in that photo was he taking responsibility for something, perhaps?

That's a topic I want to explore for Richfield Ohio Police Officers Simmons & Michel


....while the firefighters of Ladder Company 6 & Ladder Company 3 were breathing their last breaths of life on this planet & wondering how their families woiuld go on without them...Sylvan Kurzberg was smiling and having his photo taken with a cigarette lighter doing what?

Coupled with the:
1) attempt to coverup the identities of the MOSSAD agents in the Mineta Report
2)their ability to predict the future
3) the phony passports ot be planted at the GWB
4)Kurzberg flicking the cigarette lighter

...we can see all you...cough..."debunkerzzzz" all-of-a-sudden go clueless

Stephen Wright...what was your answer to Ace Baker when he asked you what shape/form the ejected debris took?

[Jonnyclueless]

Again, can someone translate please?

[david carmichael]

I assume David was trying to make a point, but who knows...I'm sure it was convincing to him...

Can someone convert his posts into english grammar?

The point to Stephen Wright is that this was an "attack on the US Flag" & that he should carefully consider the veracity of what he both DOES SAY & avoid saying...

...you want to tell Stephen Wright what shape you thought the ejected debris took the form of...in "nosed out" at YouTube one guy states a "microprecision match"

Go to VINDYdotCOM-->discussions-->politics Stephen Wright.

The bad guys are going to be forced to bite off more than they can ever possibly hope to chew

You want to consider CAREFULLY your participation in this forum.

Did Ron Weick inform you that that NYPD Audio dispatch was floating around out in the wild when he asked you to participate in his show?

How about the Mineta Report? Did Ron Weick tell you what was in there?

[DGM]

Does anybody have a "babble fish" I could borrow so I can follow this.

[twinstead]

It appears that some folks think that the same old irrationality dressed up in an acerbic, sarcastic jumpsuit somehow makes it all right.

Interesting.

[david carmichael]

Again, can someone translate please?

for a guy with 2,543 posts you need help...

I'll give you a bite-sized chunk then...

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage
2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)
3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took, JonnyClueless...

Please, pro-Zionists...all of you CHIME IN...when Officer Simmons & Officer Michel see what Sylavan Kurzberg was doing with that cigarette lighter & Gumboot's scholarship... i can go STRAIGHT to the "intellectual honesty/dishonesty" of the cream of America's Zionists(A Jay Cristol...dual citizen,Michael Oren, etc)

[twinstead]

The point to Stephen Wright is that this was an "attack on the US Flag" & that he should carefully consider the veracity of what he both DOES SAY & avoid saying...

...you want to tell Stephen Wright what shape you thought the ejected debris took the form of...in "nosed out" at YouTube one guy states a "microprecision match"

Go to VINDYdotCOM-->discussions-->politics Stephen Wright.

The bad guys are going to be forced to bite off more than they can ever possibly hope to chew

You want to consider CAREFULLY your participation in this forum.

Did Ron Weick inform you that that NYPD Audio dispatch was floating around out in the wild when he asked you to participate in his show?

How about the Mineta Report? Did Ron Weick tell you what was in there?

If you bring your translator with you, perhaps YOU could bring your blistering facts into these in-person debates.

[david carmichael]

Does anybody have a "babble fish" I could borrow so I can follow this.

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took, DGM?...

[Brainache]

So Mr Carmichael, I'd like to hear more. Can you tell me about the Jews? Are they really the evil secret force controlling the world? Do you have a newsletter? I'm sure we'd all like to read it...:duck:

[Brainache]

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took, DGM?...


I'm not DGM or Steven Wright, but I would say that it took the shape of a fast travelling cloud of smoke and debris. What shape should it have been? Square? Triangular? STAR SHAPED?????

[A W Smith]

Again, can someone translate please?

Its about 500 bucks David never coughed up
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76069

[david carmichael]

So Mr Carmichael, I'd like to hear more. Can you tell me about the Jews? Are they really the evil secret force controlling the world? Do you have a newsletter? I'm sure we'd all like to read it...:duck:

Why would you attempt to hide "Zionism" behind "Judaism"

Kind of like trying to hide "The Mafia" behind "Italian Catholicism"

...but splendid! I wanted Squad 3 of the Cleveland, Ohio FBI & the Richfield Police Officers to see this attempt to evade


BrainAche,
In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took, BrainAche?...

These chaps aren't doing so good, Stephen Wright...do you think they'll have fooled/manipulated the Richfield, Ohio Police?

[gumboot]

Well, well well!

Gumboot & Ron Weick(pomeroo) in the same thread!!! Splendid!

This is tokyo_dave_paton using his "david carmichael" nom-de-plume.


Ron Weick...you sound SO SINCERE in those Hardfire videos

Is it "false sincerity"?

Could I demonstrate that to THE RICHFIELD,OHIO Police Department using your comments about Gumboot "refuting my claim completely"?

Ron Weick...when Stephen Wright was asked what shape/form the ejected dust/concrete/drywall/choclate fudge/whatever took the form of....what was his answer?

Simon Shack stated it was a "micro-precison [pixelization] match" to the nosecone of a jetliner...100%

If not a "microprecison match" of 100% ...please tell Rush Limbaugh-loving & Israel supporting Richfield Police Officers Simmons & Michel AS WELL AS Police Sergeant, Lou Testa...what percentage match is it??

95%???

85%???

What shape/form is it, Ron Weick?...and where did either YOU or the expert Stephen Wright answer that when Ace Baker(TruthSeeker1234) asked that question...

Ron Weick...can you hyperlink me to the thread where we can discuss the MOSSAD AGENTS who predicted the future and explain WHY you refused to provide the Mineta Report hyperlink and/or the NYPD audio dispatch to the Richfield Ohio Police Department when asked to do so in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group?

GUMBOOT...is this a pro-Zionist "debunkers forum" or a pro-Zionist "disinformers forum"?

You'll get a chance to back your scholarship before Sergeant Testa...because he took that doctored IDF Photo to the Richfield Law Director...

...you can set him on the straight path IF I SUPPOSEDLY misled him, correct?

I thought so...don't disappear, Gumboot...don't disappear like you did when asked if you would encourage Donald Ackerman to back your scholarship.

The folks at the Sports Handicappers Site SBRFORUMS Politics section have been promised by me that those future-predicting MOSSAD AGENTS will pick 100% pointspread winners this year AS WELL AS the winning lottery numbers each week from this nation's lotteries.


Ron Weick...when will the Ace Baker #1 video become available again?... after showing the Richfield Police your SINCERITY in the USS Liberty e-mail postings ...I want to analyze that FIRST VIDEO for them minute-by-minute TO DEMONSTRATE the interaction between Stephen Wright & Ace Baker & perhaps you...

...when Ace Baker asked Stephen Wright what shape/form the ejected debris/dust took?

Everybody, to the best of my knowledge, has refused to answer that question

Go to VINDYdotCOM Politics Forum to see my tokyo_dave_paton thread...you're mentioned there Ron Weick....you're also mentioned at the SBR sportsbook review forums



Oh God not you again. Have you come back to give me my money, or will you choose to remain a proven liar?

[david carmichael]

Its about 500 bucks David never coughed up
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76069

Yes. splendid!

That is the EXACT POINT I want to make before Police Sergeant Testa...who took the doctored IDF Photo to the Richfield, Ohio Law Director

Either I misled Sergeant Testa by showing him that OR A SUBSET OF you posters here are doing so

Did I mislead, Sergeant Testa?


I mean GUMBOOT & JSIV would never claim $500 based on the idea that ship's masts ARE NOT anchored to the deck BUT INSTEAD float freely in air, correct?

But back to the point...

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took, A W Smith?...

[Brainache]

Why would you attempt to hide "Zionism" behind "Judaism"

Kind of like trying to hide "The Mafia" behind "Italian Catholicism"

Why is Zionism an issue for you? Are you a native of Palestine? Do you spend much time protesting other causes, like China's policies in Tibet or the Burmese treatment or the Karan people?
What is it about Zionism that makes it such a special cause for you Mr Carmichael?


...but splendid! I wanted Squad 3 of the Cleveland, Ohio FBI & the Richfield Police Officers to see this attempt to evade


BrainAche,
In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took, BrainAche?...

These chaps aren't doing so good, Stephen Wright...do you think they'll have fooled/manipulated the Richfield, Ohio Police?

For the record I never said that the explosion of the plane was like a cabbage. That was the explosion of my Nutbar-ometer when I tried to use it to gage your post.

Some things sometimes look like other things, that doesn't mean they are the same.

[david carmichael]

Oh God not you again. Have you come back to give me my money, or will you choose to remain a proven liar?


Actually, I came back to show Richfield, Ohio Police Sergeant Lou Testa about Zionism & his two Rush Limbaugh-loving, Israel supporting subordinates, Officer Simmons & Officer Michel

Did I mislead, Police Sergeant, Lou Testa, Gumboot?

..or are you going to back your scholarship before him AS YOU REFUSED to encourage Donald Ackerman to do...

But right now... Sergeant Testa, Officer Simmons & Officer Michel must be wondering why no one has answered the following...

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took, Gumboot?...

[A W Smith]

Yes. splendid!

That is the EXACT POINT I want to make before Police Sergeant Testa...who took the doctored IDF Photo to the Richfield, Ohio Law Director

Either I misled Sergeant Testa by showing him that OR A SUBSET OF you posters here are doing so

Did I mislead, Sergeant Testa?


I mean GUMBOOT & JSIV would never claim $500 based on the idea that ship's masts ARE NOT anchored to the deck BUT INSTEAD float freely in air, correct?

But back to the point...

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took, A W Smith?...

Ejecta, Which includes human bodies. You are one sick pup.
you need to follow this link (http://www.walgreens.com/pharmacy/default.jsp)

[david carmichael]

Why is Zionism an issue for you? Are you a native of Palestine? Do you spend much time protesting other causes, like China's policies in Tibet or the Burmese treatment or the Karan people?
What is it about Zionism that makes it such a special cause for you Mr Carmichael?



For the record I never said that the explosion of the plane was like a cabbage. That was the explosion of my Nutbar-ometer when I tried to use it to gage your post.

Some things sometimes look like other things, that doesn't mean they are the same.


mmmm...hmmm

so what EXITED looke like what ENTERED...if not a 100% micro-precison match..then what was it?


..what does it look like?

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage--which is really the nut bar-ometer--not the nose-out

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took, BrainAche?...

Do not continue to post the same thing over and over, even though it is directed at different people. We call that 'spamming the forum'. If you continue to do so, you will be suspended.

[gumboot]

For anyone that is interested, david carmichael was the charlatan who offered money (it was $50 wasn't it david?) if they could identify where the front radar mast was on the USS Liberty in a gun camera image provided by the IDF from the USS Liberty incident.

I promptly did this, using my photo analysis skills to produce this image:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1015345e8556cd97b6.jpg

Which was accompanied by an explanation of my process. The vertical blue line labelled "11" identifies the position and height of the main mast in this photo. The vertical white line where it crosses the superstructure is clearly visible, and the cluster of white at the top right of the superstructure matches perfectly the array of sensors etc. at the top of the mast.

Despite what I feel is a complete and accurate fulfilment of his request, David has to this date failed to provide to me any of the promised funds, revealing him to be a fraud and a liar.

[david carmichael]

Ejecta, Which includes human bodies. You are one sick pup.
you need to follow this link (http://www.walgreens.com/pharmacy/default.jsp)



Does the ejected debris take the shape/form of an airplane's nosecone.... and what did Stephen Wright answer to that when asked by Ace Baker?

[HyJinX]

Does the ejected debris take the shape/form of an airplane's nosecone.... and what did Stephen Wright answer to that when asked by Ace Baker?

Hey...you got that $50 you owe Gumboot?

Nobody likes liars and frauds. Pay up.

[david carmichael]

....so I am the one who misled, Police Sergeant Testa,correct?

What was the predicate I provided for refusal? It was what, Gumboot?

..and how did you respond when I asked you to encourage Doanld Ackerman to back your scholarship?

You wouldn't claim $500 without also encouraging others to back your scholarship, correct?

You wouldn't claim $500 based on ship's masts NOT BEING anchored to the deck BUT INSTEAD floating freely in air carried by fairies, would you?

But back to what you're avoiding before Stepehen wright & the Richfield Police

GUMBOOT...why did Ron Weick refuse to provide the
1)NYPD Dispatch
2)Mineta Transporatation Report

..hyperlinks to the Richfield Police when i included them as adressees in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group

...and to the other topic your avoiding before Stepehen Wright


Gumboot,

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage--which instead was a "nut bar-ometer"

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took,Gumboot?...

These chaps aren't doing so good, Stephen Wright...do you think they'll have fooled/manipulated the Richfield, Ohio Police?


For anyone that is interested, david carmichael was the charlatan who offered money (it was $50 wasn't it david?) if they could identify where the front radar mast was on the USS Liberty in a gun camera image provided by the IDF from the USS Liberty incident.

I promptly did this, using my photo analysis skills to produce this image:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1015345e8556cd97b6.jpg

Which was accompanied by an explanation of my process. The vertical blue line labelled "11" identifies the position and height of the main mast in this photo. The vertical white line where it crosses the superstructure is clearly visible, and the cluster of white at the top right of the superstructure matches perfectly the array of sensors etc. at the top of the mast.

Despite what I feel is a complete and accurate fulfilment of his request, David has to this date failed to provide to me any of the promised funds, revealing him to be a fraud and a liar.

[Brainache]

Does the ejected debris take the shape/form of an airplane's nosecone.... and what did Stephen Wright answer to that when asked by Ace Baker?

It looked exactly like a fast moving cloud of smoke and debris. It may be that it was the same shape as an airplane's nose cone, but it was also the same shape as a fish head, a football, a sports car or anything else which moves at speed.

Your argument is totally stupid and no one in their right mind is going to agree with you.

[gumboot]

I think the ejecta out of WTC2 was actually the missing mast from the USS Liberty. That explains where it was all these years!

[HyJinX]

....so I am the one who misled, Police Sergeant Testa,correct?

What was the predicate I provided for refusal? It was what, Gumboot?

..and how did you respond when I asked you to encourage Doanld Ackerman to back your scholarship?

You wouldn't claim $500 without also encouraging others to back your scholarship, correct?

You wouldn't claim $500 based on ship's masts NOT BEING anchored to the deck BUT INSTEAD floating freely in air carried by fairies, would you?

But back to what you're avoiding before Stepehen wright & the Richfield Police

GUMBOOT...why did Ron Weick refuse to provide the
1)NYPD Dispatch
2)Mineta Transporatation Report

..hyperlinks to the Richfield Police when i included them as adressees in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group

...and to the other topic your avoiding before Stepehen Wright


Gumboot,

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage--which instead was a "nut bar-ometer"

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took,Gumboot?...

These chaps aren't doing so good, Stephen Wright...do you think they'll have fooled/manipulated the Richfield, Ohio Police?

Pay up, liar.

[gumboot]

I stand corrected. Apparently the actual deal was for $500.00. I would have accepted $50.00. (I intend to donate the money to the JREF).

[david carmichael]

Hey...you got that $50 you owe Gumboot?

Nobody likes liars and frauds. Pay up.


You're correct...no one does like liars & frauds...particularly when they are supporting those who attacked the US Flag in an act of war(treason during wartime is a death-penalty offense)

Did GUMBOOT refuse to have Donald Ackerman back his scholarship?

Do ship's masts ABSOLUTELY NEED to be anchored to the deck OR CANTHEY ALSO float freely in air carried by fairies...


But back to what you're avoiding before Stepehen wright & the Richfield Police

HyJinx-----why did Ron Weick refuse to provide the
1)NYPD Dispatch
2)Mineta Transporatation Report

..hyperlinks to the Richfield Police when i included them as adressees in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group

...and to the other topic your avoiding before Stepehen Wright


HyJinx,

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage--which instead was a "nut bar-ometer"

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took,HyJinx?...

[HyJinX]

I stand corrected. Apparently the actual deal was for $500.00. I would have accepted $50.00. (I intend to donate the money to the JREF).

Pay up or move on, David. Prove that you're not the liar and fraud that you've made yourself out to be thus far. What say you?

[david carmichael]

I stand corrected. Apparently the actual deal was for $500.00. I would have accepted $50.00. (I intend to donate the money to the JREF).

You'd collect $500 you were not entitled to, Gumboot?

You're hitting the REPLY button instead of the QUOTE button because you don't want Stephen Wright & the Richfield, Ohio Police to see what YOU'RE NOT responding to




But back to what you're avoiding before Stepehen wright & the Richfield Police

GUMBOOT...why did Ron Weick refuse to provide the
1)NYPD Dispatch
2)Mineta Transporatation Report

..hyperlinks to the Richfield Police when i included them as adressees in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group

...and to the other topic your avoiding before Stepehen Wright


Gumboot,

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage--which instead was a "nut bar-ometer"

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took,Gumboot?...

[HyJinX]

You're correct...no one does like liars & frauds...particularly when they are supporting those who attacked the US Flag in an act of war(treason during wartime is a death-penalty offense)

Did GUMBOOT refuse to have Donald Ackerman back his scholarship?

Do ship's masts ABSOLUTELY NEED to be anchored to the deck OR CANTHEY ALSO float freely in air carried by fairies...


But back to what you're avoiding before Stepehen wright & the Richfield Police

HyJinx-----why did Ron Weick refuse to provide the
1)NYPD Dispatch
2)Mineta Transporatation Report

..hyperlinks to the Richfield Police when i included them as adressees in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group

...and to the other topic your avoiding before Stepehen Wright


HyJinx,

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage--which instead was a "nut bar-ometer"

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took,HyJinx?...

Blah blah blah, nutjob. Are you going to settle your debt here or not? If not, you stand not a chance to be taken seriously. You'll need to do better to be taken at your word. Personally, I dispise liars. I emplore all of you to push this point on ol' dave here before we move forward. You dug the whole...not it's time to get yourself if you want to have a valid voice here.

[david carmichael]

Pay up or move on, David. Prove that you're not the liar and fraud that you've made yourself out to be thus far. What say you?


I provided the predicate for payment, HyJinx...

GUMBOOT refused because it would have obliterated portions of the photo


I'll move on when I'm good & ready, thank you...

I've got you all squealing like a bunch of wee pigs here...

You're caught, m'wee bairns!


:)

But back to what you're avoiding before Stepehen wright & the Richfield Police

HyJinx...why did Ron Weick refuse to provide the
1)NYPD Dispatch
2)Mineta Transporatation Report

..hyperlinks to the Richfield Police when i included them as adressees in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group

...and to the other topic your avoiding before Stepehen Wright


HyJinx,

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage--which instead was a "nut bar-ometer"

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took,HyJinx?...

[Brainache]

Well oink bloody oink. Someone's off his pills again...

[david carmichael]

Blah blah blah, nutjob. Are you going to settle your debt here or not? If not, you stand not a chance to be taken seriously. You'll need to do better to be taken at your word. Personally, I dispise liars. I emplore all of you to push this point on ol' dave here before we move forward. You dug the whole...not it's time to get yourself if you want to have a valid voice here.


I think you're evasiveness will mean I'll be taken VERY seriously...now back to what you avoided answering...

Did GUMBOOT refuse to have Donald Ackerman back his scholarship?...yes or no?

Do ship's masts ABSOLUTELY NEED to be anchored to the deck OR CAN THEY ALSO float freely in air carried by fairies?...




...and did Ron Weick tell Stephen Wright that:
1)The NYPD Dispatch &
2)Mineta Transporatation report were out there in the wild

..before he asked Stephen Wright onto his show?


and FINALLY:
In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage--which instead was a "nut bar-ometer"

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took

[david carmichael]

Well oink bloody oink. Someone's off his pills again...


Then why so much trouble answering, BrainAche
what you're avoiding before Stepehen wright & the Richfield Police

BrainAche...why did Ron Weick refuse to provide the
1)NYPD Dispatch
2)Mineta Transporatation Report

..hyperlinks to the Richfield Police when i included them as adressees in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group

...and to the other topic your avoiding before Stepehen Wright


BrainAche,

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage--which instead was a "nut bar-ometer"

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took,BrainAche?...

[HyJinX]

Then why so much trouble answering, BrainAche
what you're avoiding before Stepehen wright & the Richfield Police

BrainAche...why did Ron Weick refuse to provide the
1)NYPD Dispatch
2)Mineta Transporatation Report

..hyperlinks to the Richfield Police when i included them as adressees in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group

...and to the other topic your avoiding before Stepehen Wright


BrainAche,

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage--which instead was a "nut bar-ometer"

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took,BrainAche?...

Hey crazy guy...pay up or move on. I'll keep derailing this thread until you pay up. Nobody here is going to answer your completely silly questions. You're not proving yourself compitent. What say you?

[david carmichael]

See you later this week, folks...

Go to VindyDOTcom---> discussions-->politics

Stephen Wright---- I'd sever all associations with these people

You can determine for yourself by their own writings whether or not they have tried to involve you in an act of treason

The bad guys are going to be forced to bite off more than they can ever possibly hope to chew, Stephen Wright

Go to VindyDOT com to see how it will be accomplished...don't let these people here drag you down with them before a constitutionally-compliant, constitutionally-installed, lawful, passive martial law tribunal("guilty" until proven "innocent" in martail law proceedings)

[Jonnyclueless]

I still can't understand a single word this guy is saying. Can someone please explain what the hell he is talking about? It's all jibberish!

100% micro-accuracy? WTF?!?! Mossad agents? WTF?!?! Cabbage? WTF?!?!

I mean look at this sentence:

"In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;"

That is NOT english grammar. And my intent is not to criticize someone's grammar, but if it's not even in proper english, how the heck are we to understand what he is saying? How about throwing in a verb here or there at least?

[Arus808]

David, please provide proof (via paypal receipt or money order scan) that you have paid Gumboot his $500 (or $50)

[HyJinX]

I still can't understand a single word this guy is saying. Can someone please explain what the hell he is talking about? It's all jibberish!

100% micro-accuracy? WTF?!?! Mossad agents? WTF?!?! Cabbage? WTF?!?!

I mean look at this sentence:

"In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;"

That is NOT english grammar. And my intent is not to criticize someone's grammar, but if it's not even in proper english, how the heck are we to understand what he is saying? How about throwing in a verb here or there at least?

Apparently, he's not running low on nut-nut pills.

[HyJinX]

See you later this week, folks...

Go to VindyDOTcom---> discussions-->politics

Stephen Wright---- I'd sever all associations with these people

You can determine for yourself by their own writings whether or not they have tried to involve you in an act of treason

The bad guys are going to be forced to bite off more than they can ever possibly hope to chew, Stephen Wright

Go to VindyDOT com to see how it will be accomplished...don't let these people here drag you down with them before a constitutionally-compliant, constitutionally-installed, lawful, passive martial law tribunal("guilty" until proven "innocent" in martail law proceedings)

See ya when you have Gumboots $500 in hand. Until then...keep moving on.

[Brainache]

Then why so much trouble answering, BrainAche
what you're avoiding before Stepehen wright & the Richfield Police

BrainAche...why did Ron Weick refuse to provide the
1)NYPD Dispatch
2)Mineta Transporatation Report


..hyperlinks to the Richfield Police when i included them as adressees in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group

I have no idea what this is about. Take it up with Pomeroo.


...and to the other topic your avoiding before Stepehen Wright


BrainAche,

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage--which instead was a "nut bar-ometer"

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video

...what shape do YOU think it took,BrainAche?...

I have answered this several times.

1) Nope it was the shape of a fast moving cloud of smoke and debris.

2) Fast moving clouds tend to have an aerodynamic shape. You would have to be a loony to think otherwise.

3) Steven Wright is an expert on video composite effects, not the physics of explosive plane crashes, but having said that, I'm pretty sure he doesn't agree with you for the simple reason that he is not a lunatic.

You still haven't answered my questions about why you hate Jews so much.

[A W Smith]

Schizophrenics ROCK!!!! :)

[gumboot]

I still can't understand a single word this guy is saying.


Welcome to the club. He has a... unique turn of phrase.

[pomeroo]

Well, well well!

Gumboot & Ron Weick(pomeroo) in the same thread!!! Splendid!

This is tokyo_dave_paton using his "david carmichael" nom-de-plume.


Ron Weick...you sound SO SINCERE in those Hardfire videos

Is it "false sincerity"?


Yes, it is false sincerity. I really understand that a gigantic, mathematically-impossible conspiracy perpetrated the attacks that the jihadists, infuriatingly, insist on taking credit for. My deception has fooled everyone who is sane and rational. But, I never expected to slip it past low-IQ anti-Semites.



Could I demonstrate that to THE RICHFIELD,OHIO Police Department using your comments about Gumboot "refuting my claim completely"?


Do we get a clue to what "that" refers to?



Ron Weick...when Stephen Wright was asked what shape/form the ejected dust/concrete/drywall/choclate fudge/whatever took the form of....what was his answer?


Ah, a trick question! I'll guess that Wright says the same thing when you watch the Google video as he does when the rest of us watch. Am I right?




Simon Shack stated it was a "micro-precison [pixelization] match" to the nosecone of a jetliner...100%


Wow! He must be very stupid.



If not a "microprecison match" of 100% ...please tell Rush Limbaugh-loving & Israel supporting Richfield Police Officers Simmons & Michel AS WELL AS Police Sergeant, Lou Testa...what percentage match is it??

95%???

85%???


I'm sure the Richfield Police Dept. is relevant to something, but please don't give us any hints. We will try to puzzle it out in private. If you haven't heard from us in six months, that's okay.



What shape/form is it, Ron Weick?...and where did either YOU or the expert Stephen Wright answer that when Ace Baker(TruthSeeker1234) asked that question...


Again, most of us would imagine that ejecta being forced out of the building would assume a projectile shape. But, of course, we are limited by our sanity.



Ron Weick...can you hyperlink me to the thread where we can discuss the MOSSAD AGENTS who predicted the future and explain WHY you refused to provide the Mineta Report hyperlink and/or the NYPD audio dispatch to the Richfield Ohio Police Department when asked to do so in the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group?


No.




GUMBOOT...is this a pro-Zionist "debunkers forum" or a pro-Zionist "disinformers forum"?


No.




You'll get a chance to back your scholarship before Sergeant Testa...because he took that doctored IDF Photo to the Richfield Law Director...

...you can set him on the straight path IF I SUPPOSEDLY misled him, correct?

I thought so...don't disappear, Gumboot...don't disappear like you did when asked if you would encourage Donald Ackerman to back your scholarship.

The folks at the Sports Handicappers Site SBRFORUMS Politics section have been promised by me that those future-predicting MOSSAD AGENTS will pick 100% pointspread winners this year AS WELL AS the winning lottery numbers each week from this nation's lotteries.


"Still crazy after all these years..."



Ron Weick...when will the Ace Baker #1 video become available again?... after showing the Richfield Police your SINCERITY in the USS Liberty e-mail postings ...I want to analyze that FIRST VIDEO for them minute-by-minute TO DEMONSTRATE the interaction between Stephen Wright & Ace Baker & perhaps you...

...when Ace Baker asked Stephen Wright what shape/form the ejected debris/dust took?

Everybody, to the best of my knowledge, has refused to answer that question


Perhaps you don't hear the answers.



Go to VINDYdotCOM Politics Forum to see my tokyo_dave_paton thread...you're mentioned there Ron Weick....you're also mentioned at the SBR sportsbook review forums


Thanks, but I'll pass.

[R.Mackey]

Far be it from me to inject some sanity back into this thread, but since I don't have a clue how the Richfield Ohio Police Department fits into this and the only person who knows seems incapable of coherent expression, let me try something different...

Some time ago in the Politics forum, WildCat brought to my attention some actual breaking evidence in the USS Liberty story. Not hocus-pocus altered photos and such, but good ol' investigative legwork. Post is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3020500#post3020500).

The news story there should not be treated as iron-clad proof, since it depends on some unidentified sources and is thus not repeatable, but I found it quite plausible, good enough for me to consider as the leading theory. If the story and my interpretation of it are correct, a rough outline of events is as follows:

In the heat of battle, Israeli warplanes accidentally attack a United States vessel (the Liberty)
Shortly thereafter, pilots realize their mistake and report its true identity to controllers
A low-level controller realizes that this mistake could be Very Bad and makes a snap decision -- destroy the evidence as quickly as possible
The controller orders pilots to resume the attack
The pilots, confused, argue with the controller but eventually carry out a second, half-hearted attack
After the second attack, pilots have no remaining doubts about the target's identity, report this to control, and break off the attack on their own initiative
Senior Israeli officers soon learn of this and try to squelch it, concerned that such an act might make them appear reckless, and cost them international support at an extremely critical time (viz. while engaged in war)
American officials also learn of this act -- either through restricted but official channels or through our own intelligence services -- and also decide that keeping it quiet favors our long-term goals (after all, it isn't like we're going to war with Israel because of an isolated blue-on-blue event)

If this is true, then the USS Liberty is, indeed, an international conspiracy and coverup carried out willingly by the United States Government. Yes, it can and does happen.

But.

The conspiracy isn't all that exciting. This isn't a conspiracy to carry out some dastardly deed. This is spur-of-the-moment damage control to CYA, after somebody else made a terrible, but all too human, blunder.

One could argue that the actions of the US and Israeli governments were short-sighted. It is possible that, even had the IDF held a press conference five minutes later, announcing: "We accidentally attacked a US ship, twice, killing many on board, and officers in our military reacted badly after the fact. We accept full responsibility and promise to make full recompensation to the victims and the United States." Perhaps nothing would have happened. The international community might have just accepted it as one of the awful things that happens in a war. The United States has done its own share, shooting down our own helicopters, strafing British Army, bombing embassies by mistake, and so on. It happens. So they may have played it too safe by conspiring to quiet it until after the fighting had stopped. That's a political discussion.

There is, however, absolutely no evidence that the event was premeditated. Likewise, supposing the wild-eyed speculation about doctored photos and floating masts and different hull lines and so on is true, what does it mean? Is there any possible theory that such "anomalies" support? I can't think of any. This proves only one thing -- that the anomalies are the head of the person seeing them.

Same principle applies to the Truth Movement. Without a hypothesis, all the anomalies in the world amount to nothing. And while real conspiracies exist, they just aren't that exciting. Nobody goes to such fantastic lengths to pull off who knows what, it just isn't done. Too risky, and no reward. Period.

[Jonnyclueless]

But but but...They're jooooos!!

[Corsair 115]

My scorecard is a mess, so I'm having trouble telling. Is david carmichael saying he's a no planer?

[pomeroo]

My scorecard is a mess, so I'm having trouble telling. Is david carmichael saying he's a no planer?


David Carmichael makes no-planers look sane.

[cyclonic]

In the nose-out footage we so far, to the best of my knowledge, THREE candidates for what shape/form the ejected debris took;

1)shape of a cabbage--which instead was a "nut bar-ometer"

2)nose cone of a jetliner(100% or something less percentage-wise of a microprecison match)

3)whatever answer Stephen Wright gave when Ace Baker asked him that question in the video




Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

[fitzgibbon]

I disagree.

Firstly, we don't know if the automatic iris adjusted to the appearance of the aircraft in the shot.

I can't see the video of part 1 so I'll make this reply with the caveat. That said, I'm pretty certain that I've seen the video in question and quite honestly, from the perspective of the auto-iris, the plane doesn't represent enough of a change in light value for the auto-iris to make any appreciable change to the exposure settings. Also, auto-iris (when used at all) tends to be used by newbie ENG (Electronic News Gathering) shooters rather than on production-type platforms which a chopper-mounted camera is a closer relative to.

I disagree.
Secondly, we don't know if the automatic iris should have adjusted to the appearance of the aircraft in the shot.

Most likely not, again for the same reason as stated above. Auto-iris was more of a valuable fallback back in the day when cameras were tube-based and subject to flaring if the tubes were overdriven by overexposure. This sort of overdriving would permanently damage a tube if not addressed quickly rendering auto-iris a valuable safety net considering the per tube cost of replacement was easily a couple of thou and up depending on the make and quality of camera. However, since chip sensors have been de rigeur since the 90's, this isn't an issue anymore as the worst that one might expect from overdriving a chip sensor is that you might get neighbouring pixels being overdriven as well resulting in a vertical line in the image; undesirable from an aesthetic standpoint but not damaging.

I disagree.
Lastly, Steve Wright's explanation for the fade is entirely consistent with the mechanics of an automatic iris - I personally just do not believe it is the case in this instance, based on information other than the video. Ace Baker's contention, on the other hand, is physically impossible. Thus Ace's explanation for the "fade" is far less likely than Steve Wright's.

I'd venture that the reasons for the 'black' (such that it was) can be reasonably found in either of two scenarios:

1. BFF (Big Fat Finger). Cameraman adjusting iris setting manually to correct for the changed light values in the overall image. You'd be surprised and impressed at how quickly a professional worth his/her salt can reset.

or (and more likely IMHO)

2. An interruption in the transmission path as a result of the impact. If you think about it, choppers typically don't carry an on-board VCR because they're heavy (about 30 pounds give or take) and chopper footage is all about immediacy. The best (and easiest) way to get the signal to air is by live link. Interrupt (or impinge) that signal path at any point though and you lose that camera resource. That, to me, is what appears to have happened in that case.

Just for the record, I've worked in television for 30-odd years (and 30 odd years they've been nyuk, nyuk nyuk), first as a cameraman with such stellar boat-anchors as the JVC KY2000 and RCA TK-76 before moving on to editing 17 years ago (because Regina on a -30 degree winter day with a wind is hard to justify when the tape guys are all nice-and-cozy at a climate-controlled 20C year-round).

[fitzgibbon]

It's also possible that the iris was already fully open, so that when the plane enters the shot the image is already as bright as the camera can make it.

On that day, at that time and shooting in the direction it was, the iris was if anything spitting distance from closed. It was a perfect, clear day, well after sun-up and shooting not far from into the sun as the chopper was, there would be precious little latitude for iris adjustment to further darken the image without shutting the iris completely, going to apparent black. In an ideal situation, the camera operator should've had an ND filter (neutral density: cuts the light value without affecting the colour balance) in-place. That would've allowed more leeway in terms of iris adjustment.

However, Sept. 11 was hardly an ideal day and people can be forgiven for not doing things as they might have otherwise.

[chillzero]

I see some people trying very hard to sidetrack this thread despite an admirable attempt by others to stay on topic.

I don't want to see any more demands about ships, or $50 or $500 in this thread. Keep it civil, and stay on topic. Otherwise it may be closed.

No more personal attacks.

[gumboot]

FYI the camera was on a WESCAM mount so the "big fat finger" option is totally out the window - the camera is on a hothead and everything is controlled remotely.

[david carmichael]

A "fast moving cloud" that exited subsequent to the penetration??:D

Where did you mention "fast moving cloud" before and after hyperlinking us to that posting point to us the portion of that same post where you pointed out the percentage match to the "nosecone in"???
...

Pixels can be counted in the "fast moving cloud" & "nose cone in" AND PRESUMABLY COMPARED as a

1)percentage
2 and image overlay



Hey, stepehen wright.... here's something you can attach your reputation to...the "fast moving cloud" thesis..

Ron Weick.... was that what Stepehen Wright's answer was to Ace Baker's question about what the shape of the nose out exit was?

Is the Ace Baker/Steve Wright first video still unavailable?



I have no idea what this is about. Take it up with Pomeroo.



I have answered this several times.

1) Nope it was the shape of a fast moving cloud of smoke and debris.

2) Fast moving clouds tend to have an aerodynamic shape. You would have to be a loony to think otherwise.

3) Steven Wright is an expert on video composite effects, not the physics of explosive plane crashes, but having said that, I'm pretty sure he doesn't agree with you for the simple reason that he is not a lunatic.

You still haven't answered my questions about why you hate Jews so much.

[david carmichael]

Swing & a miss!, R Mackey...

Reply to this message & Stepehen Wright contained in the appropriate thread as per the JREF Moderator's admonition

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3719294&postcount=158



Far be it from me to inject some sanity back into this thread, but since I don't have a clue how the Richfield Ohio Police Department fits into this and the only person who knows seems incapable of coherent expression, let me try something different...

Some time ago in the Politics forum, WildCat brought to my attention some actual breaking evidence in the USS Liberty story. Not hocus-pocus altered photos and such, but good ol' investigative legwork. Post is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3020500#post3020500).

The news story there should not be treated as iron-clad proof, since it depends on some unidentified sources and is thus not repeatable, but I found it quite plausible, good enough for me to consider as the leading theory. If the story and my interpretation of it are correct, a rough outline of events is as follows:


In the heat of battle, Israeli warplanes accidentally attack a United States vessel (the Liberty)
Shortly thereafter, pilots realize their mistake and report its true identity to controllers
A low-level controller realizes that this mistake could be Very Bad and makes a snap decision -- destroy the evidence as quickly as possible
The controller orders pilots to resume the attack
The pilots, confused, argue with the controller but eventually carry out a second, half-hearted attack
After the second attack, pilots have no remaining doubts about the target's identity, report this to control, and break off the attack on their own initiative
Senior Israeli officers soon learn of this and try to squelch it, concerned that such an act might make them appear reckless, and cost them international support at an extremely critical time (viz. while engaged in war)
American officials also learn of this act -- either through restricted but official channels or through our own intelligence services -- and also decide that keeping it quiet favors our long-term goals (after all, it isn't like we're going to war with Israel because of an isolated blue-on-blue event)If this is true, then the USS Liberty is, indeed, an international conspiracy and coverup carried out willingly by the United States Government. Yes, it can and does happen.

But.

The conspiracy isn't all that exciting. This isn't a conspiracy to carry out some dastardly deed. This is spur-of-the-moment damage control to CYA, after somebody else made a terrible, but all too human, blunder.

One could argue that the actions of the US and Israeli governments were short-sighted. It is possible that, even had the IDF held a press conference five minutes later, announcing: "We accidentally attacked a US ship, twice, killing many on board, and officers in our military reacted badly after the fact. We accept full responsibility and promise to make full recompensation to the victims and the United States." Perhaps nothing would have happened. The international community might have just accepted it as one of the awful things that happens in a war. The United States has done its own share, shooting down our own helicopters, strafing British Army, bombing embassies by mistake, and so on. It happens. So they may have played it too safe by conspiring to quiet it until after the fighting had stopped. That's a political discussion.

There is, however, absolutely no evidence that the event was premeditated. Likewise, supposing the wild-eyed speculation about doctored photos and floating masts and different hull lines and so on is true, what does it mean? Is there any possible theory that such "anomalies" support? I can't think of any. This proves only one thing -- that the anomalies are the head of the person seeing them.

Same principle applies to the Truth Movement. Without a hypothesis, all the anomalies in the world amount to nothing. And while real conspiracies exist, they just aren't that exciting. Nobody goes to such fantastic lengths to pull off who knows what, it just isn't done. Too risky, and no reward. Period.

[david carmichael]

David Carmichael makes no-planers look sane.


Does the plane appear ONE FRAME subsequent to the miracle zoom, Stephen Wright & pomeroo?


Ron Weick(pomeroo)....before you asked Stepehen Wright to come on the show did you inform him about the NYPD Radio Dispatch & Mineta transportation report where the Israeli MOSSAD Agents are able to tell the future.

You wouldn't have sandbagged Stephen Wright, correct?

I mean you DEFINITELY DID TELL Stephen Wright about Sylvan Kurzberg being photographed with the flicked cigarette lighter, correct?

In the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group---Dr Frank Greening, trotted out by ABC News to post a phony article on how the collapse at free-fall speeds could defy the law of physics, must be seething in anger that the pro-Zionists allowed him to write that article knowing that the NYPD Radio Dispatch was floating around out there in-the-wild.

What was Sylvan Kurzberg taking responsibility for by flicking that cigarette lighter, Stephen Wright?

...and I seem to forget JUST WHAT future was predicted on that RENTED white van....

...ohhh! I rememberrrrr what the future prediction was after allllll... i just had PIZZA DELIVERY DRIVERS not carrying the required "commercial insurance" occupying my thoughts & how I've been stiffed out of my multiple IRS CID rewards...

....as well as my SEC Bounty for illegal insider trading when PZZA execs sold their stock subsequent to my meeting with Agent Vahue of Squad 3 of the Cleveland, Ohio FBI & earlier, Treasury Agent(IRS CID), David Mueller of Cincinatti, IRS CID.

Every time I think of me getting stiffed out of my rewards, I forget what it ACTUALLY was that the ISRAELI MOSSAD AGENTS actually did...they painted a mural of some kind...... i seem to recall that they painted that mural on a RENTED white van...

...they painted a..... they painted a... I'm drawing a blank here, Ron Weick... I'm sure Stephen Wright would want to know that they predicted the future by painting a mural of WHAT on a rented white van.

But Ron Weick can tell Stephen Wright JUST WHAT the successful prophecy was that was made by those "men of middle eastern descent", correct, Ron?

[pomeroo]

Sorry about the broken link. The first show featuring Steve Wright and Ace Baker can be viewed at


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4669137903152322593&hl=en

[pomeroo]

Does the plane appear ONE FRAME subsequent to the miracle zoom, Stephen Wright & pomeroo?


Ron Weick(pomeroo)....before you asked Stepehen Wright to come on the show did you inform him about the NYPD Radio Dispatch & Mineta transportation report where the Israeli MOSSAD Agents are able to tell the future.

You wouldn't have sandbagged Stephen Wright, correct?

I mean you DEFINITELY DID TELL Stephen Wright about Sylvan Kurzberg being photographed with the flicked cigarette lighter, correct?

In the Morgan Reynolds e-mail group---Dr Frank Greening, trotted out by ABC News to post a phony article on how the collapse at free-fall speeds could defy the law of physics, must be seething in anger that the pro-Zionists allowed him to write that article knowing that the NYPD Radio Dispatch was floating around out there in-the-wild.

What was Sylvan Kurzberg taking responsibility for by flicking that cigarette lighter, Stephen Wright?

...and I seem to forget JUST WHAT future was predicted on that RENTED white van....

...ohhh! I rememberrrrr what the future prediction was after allllll... i just had PIZZA DELIVERY DRIVERS not carrying the required "commercial insurance" occupying my thoughts & how I've been stiffed out of my multiple IRS CID rewards...

....as well as my SEC Bounty for illegal insider trading when PZZA execs sold their stock subsequent to my meeting with Agent Vahue of Squad 3 of the Cleveland, Ohio FBI & earlier, Treasury Agent(IRS CID), David Mueller of Cincinatti, IRS CID.

Every time I think of me getting stiffed out of my rewards, I forget what it ACTUALLY was that the ISRAELI MOSSAD AGENTS actually did...they painted a mural of some kind...... i seem to recall that they painted that mural on a RENTED white van...

...they painted a..... they painted a... I'm drawing a blank here, Ron Weick... I'm sure Stephen Wright would want to know that they predicted the future by painting a mural of WHAT on a rented white van.

But Ron Weick can tell Stephen Wright JUST WHAT the successful prophecy was that was made by those "men of middle eastern descent", correct, Ron?


Does anyone know what the Jew-hating loon is raving about?

[fitzgibbon]

FYI the camera was on a WESCAM mount so the "big fat finger" option is totally out the window - the camera is on a hothead and everything is controlled remotely.

By BFF, I was referring to iris twiddling, not camera motion.

[Steve Wright]

The gapping flaw in the logic of the “fake video” enthusiasts is that to assert that any one video is fake you must then also assert that they are all fake. It cannot be true that just one video is faked but all the other videos are real. Either they are all real, or they are all faked. If there exists only one real video of a jet crashing into the tower then a jet really did crash into the tower no matter how many “fakes” are “exposed” using flaky analysis and faulty reasoning.

As for the video camera AGC and iris discussion, do what I did. Show the footage to a real video engineer, ask him to inspect the nature of the picture content, and explain the dip to black. The conjectures of all the laymen on the planet cannot clarify a technical issue like this. I am reminded of the story of a child that brought a kitten to his kindergarten class. Puzzling on whether the kitten was a boy or a girl, the kindergarteners decided to vote on it. Let us stop voting on this issue.

[ElMondoHummus]

Show the footage to a real video engineer, ask him to inspect the nature of the picture content, and explain the dip to black. The conjectures of all the laymen on the planet cannot clarify a technical issue like this. I am reminded of the story of a child that brought a kitten to his kindergarten class. Puzzling on whether the kitten was a boy or a girl, the kindergarteners decided to vote on it. Let us stop voting on this issue.

L-O-L
:dl:

That's the best way I've seen it put. Now, if we could only adopt that "voting" phrase to anyone pushing AE911T...

[gumboot]

As for the video camera AGC and iris discussion, do what I did. Show the footage to a real video engineer, ask him to inspect the nature of the picture content, and explain the dip to black. The conjectures of all the laymen on the planet cannot clarify a technical issue like this. I am reminded of the story of a child that brought a kitten to his kindergarten class. Puzzling on whether the kitten was a boy or a girl, the kindergarteners decided to vote on it. Let us stop voting on this issue.


With all due respect, Steve, neither myself nor fitzgibbon are laymen. The comments of a video engineer are useful, and we've heard what one thought via yourself. However given the number of variables (focal length, aperture, ND, automatic or manual, original source type, camera model, transmission method, relay stations, power source, etc, etc, etc.) and that video engineers often don't have extensive field experience with actually using cameras, the reality is no one except the operator of that particular shot can actually give us an even remotely definitive answer to the question.

Which of course, leaves it free to speculation.

I think what all of us can agree on is that it wasn't the operator using a fade transition on the mixer to conceal the "nose out".

The notion itself is ridiculous and as I pointed out to Ace many times in the past, shows he has never worked as a Vision Mixer since the obvious (and well trained) response for any Vision Mixer when a shot becomes undesirable is to cut (not fade) to one of their many alternative shots. The golden rule of live broadcast is never, ever, send out a blank screen. Find a shot. Anything is better than nothing.

[jhunter1163]

I was going to ask how the tens of thousands of people who saw the impacts with their own eyes from every possible angle were fooled, but then decided that this might not be the thread for that.

[pomeroo]

With all due respect, Steve, neither myself nor fitzgibbon are laymen. The comments of a video engineer are useful, and we've heard what one thought via yourself. However given the number of variables (focal length, aperture, ND, automatic or manual, original source type, camera model, transmission method, relay stations, power source, etc, etc, etc.) and that video engineers often don't have extensive field experience with actually using cameras, the reality is no one except the operator of that particular shot can actually give us an even remotely definitive answer to the question.

Which of course, leaves it free to speculation.

I think what all of us can agree on is that it wasn't the operator using a fade transition on the mixer to conceal the "nose out".

The notion itself is ridiculous and as I pointed out to Ace many times in the past, shows he has never worked as a Vision Mixer since the obvious (and well trained) response for any Vision Mixer when a shot becomes undesirable is to cut (not fade) to one of their many alternative shots. The golden rule of live broadcast is never, ever, send out a blank screen. Find a shot. Anything is better than nothing.


Gumboot, I sent you a PM. Please consider participating in tonight's edition of CLOUT on Air America.

[Brainache]

...

The notion itself is ridiculous and as I pointed out to Ace many times in the past, shows he has never worked as a Vision Mixer since the obvious (and well trained) response for any Vision Mixer when a shot becomes undesirable is to cut (not fade) to one of their many alternative shots. The golden rule of live broadcast is never, ever, send out a blank screen. Find a shot. Anything is better than nothing.

Back when I was a vision switcher, I once accidentally cut a non-synch black signal to air during a news bulletin. The guys from Master Control were not happy.( I never did it again.)

That's another aspect which no-planers like Ace seem to ignore: Apart from the camera operator, what about all of the controlroom staff, tape operators, MC techs etc who would have to be aware that the shot from the chopper was being fiddled with?

Do these people just assume that everyone at every TV station is happy to go along with something like this?

OK sorry, I guess they do think that, there is no other way to sustain the lunacy.

[theauthor]

I have wondered if the fade to black was simply a vision switchers shocked reaction to seeing the plane hit the tower. Seeing something like that could certainly make you hit the wrong button.

[Brainache]

I have wondered if the fade to black was simply a vision switchers shocked reaction to seeing the plane hit the tower. Seeing something like that could certainly make you hit the wrong button.

I thought that might be possible too, but the single frame of half mixed black seems to suggest otherwise. Unless that is just a compression artifact or a consequence of the VHS dub.

Anyway, at this point all I have is idle speculation so there's not much point, as Mr Wright said.

[StoneWT]

Wow, that was...:drool:

Ace never mentioned what actually caused him to start on his theory. It's all packaged CT right from the get go. I suspect that he did not want to mention the people he pirated the material from.

[fitzgibbon]

I have wondered if the fade to black was simply a vision switchers shocked reaction to seeing the plane hit the tower. Seeing something like that could certainly make you hit the wrong button.

Quite honestly, not at all. The more I look at the footage from Hardfire, the more it's clear to me in my professional opinion that it really is BFF syndrome as I earlier referred to it.

Putting together an educated guess (and please feel free to correct me where I'm wrong), I'm assuming a chopper camera just in the process of arriving on-scene, hence the wide shot as things start. The shot's washed-out as all get out initially but the first job in the chopper crew's mind is 'gotta get in there quick' mixed with not a little bit of 'holy [rule 10]'. So things that might normally have been attended to in preparation under other circumstances slip by the wayside to a certain degree. Human nature.

Anyway, as I said, the exposure's overblown and you can tell that by the lack of detail in the highlights, most noticeably in the curve of the river at frame left when the shot first comes up (more about that later) and later on, in the lack of clarity in the edges of the WTC when the camera finally zooms in. Professional mode kicks in and camera op makes to adjust iris. Now, if you look somewhere in the middle of WTC2 just as the plane's about to hit, you'll notice just a CH (technical term for a smidgen) of an iris change, consistent with the operator placing his/her hand on the iris adjustment knob. It's then followed by the infamous fade-to-black' that everyone's talking about.

What I'm positing is happening here is nothing more exciting than an iris level screw-up. Why? Because as I mentioned earlier, given the brightness and clarity of the day and (more particularly) that the chopper's camera is shooting maybe 30 degrees off-angle from into the sun, what the camera op should normally have done is kick-in an ND (neutral density) filter which brings the luminance values down without affecting the colour balance. It also gives the camera op much more latitude with iris adjustment. But he/she hadn't done that here and was trying to ride levels with iris alone. Trouble is, once you get down to near-closed, even the smallest adjustment generates much larger response than it would in the middle of the iris range or even shooting wide-open.

So basically, we have an unfortunate confluence of technical overcompensation in iris adjustment with the arrival of the 2nd plane. No deep dark plot; just defecation happening.

That said, I have a host of other nits to pick with Steve's analysis in the first 14 minutes (that's all that I've had chance to view). Work's going to keep me thoroughly tied-up for 2 1/2 weeks before I can actually address them but the general gist is that he's making ENG cameras sound like Aunt Mabel's Sony Handicam in terms of quality when in fact, the differences between ENG and EFP cameras are minimal, all in all. The biggest points I've heard him not address in the first 14 minutes are the central role that didgitising codec plays in how much data gets tossed on inputting the video to a digital signal. Add into that the A-D (analogue to digital) element and the fact that the footage is coming off VHS which is about 2/3 broadcast resolution for good measure. And lastly, I haven't heard any mention of the transmission chain in the signal getting from the chopper to Ace's buddy's VHS recorder and therein lies a whole additional fistful of potential data being turfed both within Fox's own transmission chain and in the cable company's system (which is typically the weakest link).

Sorry if I've prattled on here but I honestly think that while Steve came to the right conclusions, he came by them for completely wrong reasons.

[gumboot]

Worth point out that I personally think the camera operator or the pilot saw UA175 coming in.

Firstly, when news choppers are cleared into an incident airspace the incident airspace is turned over to VFR (visual flight rules). It becomes the responsibility of every pilot to work out where all the other craft are and avoid them. So a chopper pilot moving into an incident airspace is going to be scanning his airspace pretty hard. Where are the other news aircraft? Where are the police choppers? Etc.

Secondly, the timing of the zoom, as Ace pointed out, is pretty fortunate. It's either one heck of a coincidence, or more likely the experienced operator saw UA175 coming towards the towers (or got told by the pilot) and zoomed in to see what it was going to do.

[fitzgibbon]

Worth point out that I personally think the camera operator or the pilot saw UA175 coming in.

Firstly, when news choppers are cleared into an incident airspace the incident airspace is turned over to VFR (visual flight rules). It becomes the responsibility of every pilot to work out where all the other craft are and avoid them. So a chopper pilot moving into an incident airspace is going to be scanning his airspace pretty hard. Where are the other news aircraft? Where are the police choppers? Etc.

Secondly, the timing of the zoom, as Ace pointed out, is pretty fortunate. It's either one heck of a coincidence, or more likely the experienced operator saw UA175 coming towards the towers (or got told by the pilot) and zoomed in to see what it was going to do.

Agreed that with VFR, the pilot's going to be checking around for other traffic but had he seen 175, he's going to be saying something to the effect that 'there's another plane off to the right coming in' and to the right is where the camera operator's going to be tracking, trying to find the incoming plane, not zooming into the WTC. That would show the kind of prescience that I'd want picking lottery numbers for me. :)

As well, he reframes on the WTC 3 times (from wide of Manhattan with river in the FGD to edge-to-edge wide of Manhattan: hold for a second: quick push to WS of towers: hold for 4 seconds and then a final tighten just before 175 hits. These aren't the actions of someone who's seen another jet and intuited that it's going to crash into the WTC. This is a guy responding to the studio director saying 'Chopper 5, can you tighten up on the towers? What you're giving me's way too wide'. So, we get a series of reframes that demonstrate no sense of urgency or awareness of another plane. To them, it's a building on fire and it isn't going anywhere.

So zoom...wait...no, that framing's too wide...zoom some more.....how's that? better. wanna check your iris? shading says your levels are way too hot....push in to check iris and focus and in the interim, the then-unthinkable happens. If anybody in that chopper had seen and commented on 175 incoming AND had deduced where it was going to impact, they would've stayed on the wider shot of the WTC rather than adding the last push-in at the last moment.

The timing of the shot was serendipity. Nothing more. Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of camcorders and one of them'll give you an Ansel Adams-class shot. :D

[Bananaman]

Pomeroonie in response to Carmichael's gibberish:
Does anyone know what the Jew-hating loon is raving about?

Nope.

One can only assume he's forgotten to take his medication. For some reason I imagine him typing frenziedly in soiled underwear with drool suspended from his grinning lips.

Bananaman.

[Drudgewire]

Does anyone know what the Jew-hating loon is raving about?

Best I can figure, he's upset at the Jews for getting him hooked on methamphetamines.

[pomeroo]

Sadly, Ace learned absolutely nothing. He has been visiting Steve Wright's home, picking his brain to learn how to create better fakes, and now he has shown up at the ridiculous YouTube video I started a thread about. Here are his latest musings:

(Ace Baker wrote)
5. Very significantly, Wright agrees with me that there is plenty of picture resolution in Ghostplane to see the broken columns at the time the wing passes. He agrees that the large hole is not present at that time, and claims that the hole must have been enlarged by the kerosene explosion.

Unfortunately for the plane theorists, Wright's claim of "kerosene cutter charge" has long been debunked by explosives professionals. Kerosene cannot cut steel. Period.

-Ace Baker


CollinAlexander (http://www.youtube.com/user/CollinAlexander) (5 hours ago) Show Hide
+1 http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/pixel-vfl73.gif http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/pixel-vfl73.gif
Marked as spam Reply | Spam


3. Wright has admitted on video that he cannot distinguish between the nose and the "debris" out.

4. Wright claims the Chopper 5 fade to black is from an Automatic Gain Control. Point a camera at the sun, it won't go black. His idea is ridiculous. Wright has correctly explained why the blackout cannot be a signal interruption.



CollinAlexander (http://www.youtube.com/user/CollinAlexander) (5 hours ago) Show Hide
+1 http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/pixel-vfl73.gif http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/pixel-vfl73.gif
Marked as spam Reply | Spam


Steve Wright is now on video telling lie after lie.

1. Wright says planes are invisible at 4 1/2 miles zoomed out. My videos show them. Wright offers no evidence.

2. Wright says nose out is debris exiting the building, either and engine or a landing gear. There is no exit hole, nor any reason debris could be a size and shape indistiguishable from a 767 nose.



CollinAlexander (http://www.youtube.com/user/CollinAlexander) (5 hours ago) Show Hide
+1 http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/pixel-vfl73.gif http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/pixel-vfl73.gif
Marked as spam Reply | Spam


Actually, we now have solved 9/11. The videos are proven fakes, and we have Steve Wright to thank for providing us the missing pieces. Until Mr. Wright appeared on Hardfire, and sat for my interview, there was no official story on the fake videos. My questions had simply gone unanswered for the most part.

-Ace Baker

Please do not post on behalf of banned members. Use links instead.

[Brainache]

Sadly, Ace learned absolutely nothing. He has been picking Steve Wrifght's brain to learn how to create better fakes, and now he has shown up at the ridiculous YouTube video I started a thread about. Here are his latest musings:

...



Did you really expect Ace to change his mind? If facts meant anything to him he wouldn't believe that crap in the first place.

I suppose it was worth a try and I admire your effort, but unfortunately people like Ace will never be reasoned out of their delusions.

[Steve Wright]

Ace has attempted to extend our Hardfire show to the silly YouTube video forum. He has garbled and confused the facts and the technology with the following postings:

(Ace Baker wrote)
5. Very significantly, Wright agrees with me that there is plenty of picture resolution in Ghostplane to see the broken columns at the time the wing passes. He agrees that the large hole is not present at that time, and claims that the hole must have been enlarged by the kerosene explosion.

Unfortunately for the plane theorists, Wright's claim of "kerosene cutter charge" has long been debunked by explosives professionals. Kerosene cannot cut steel. Period.

-Ace Baker
I made no claim of a "kerosene cutter charge". I noted that the video Ace provided clearly showed large chunks of very heavy debris blowing from the building. It is obvious from their speed and falling trajectory that they are not light objects like paper, but heavy objects like concrete or steel. Ace adds the "kerosene cutter charge" himself.


3. Wright has admitted on video that he cannot distinguish between the nose and the "debris" out.
Sounds like I was trying to distinguish between the two, but under Ace's relentless grilling I finally admitted that I couldn't. The simple truth is that I pointed out that the poor quality of the video is below the threshold required to identify what the debris was. I also pointed out the stupidity of asserting the debris was the nose of the plane simply because it resembled its shape. I also pointed out that it could not be the nose of the jet because it's speed did not match the incoming jet.

4. Wright claims the Chopper 5 fade to black is from an Automatic Gain Control. Point a camera at the sun, it won't go black. His idea is ridiculous. Wright has correctly explained why the blackout cannot be a signal interruption.
Thanks for the acknowledgment Ace. However, the Automatic Gain Control was not my own conclusion. Recognizing that my expertise does not extend into the internal workings of video camera circuitry, I consulted a video engineer that designs them, and the AGC was his conclusion. It is also technically possible that the camera operator quickly twitched the iris manually, as the visual results would be indistinguishable from the AGC. It is not technically possible for the dip to black to be caused by a switcher, power loss, or signal interruption. However, Ace knows better. He is, after all, a musician.

Steve Wright is now on video telling lie after lie.
Steve Wright is now on video debunking Ace Baker's assertions delusion by delusion.

1. Wright says planes are invisible at 4 1/2 miles zoomed out. My videos show them. Wright offers no evidence.
Wright says the particular video Ace provided is such poor quality that it does not show a tiny airplane at 4 1/2 miles zoomed out. Wright then demonstrated the principle by pointing out a tiny helicopter in the same video that simply disappears when the camera zooms out a bit. That was the evidence, apparent to all but Ace. Ace's later test videos use a different video camera with a different lens and different setups on a different airplane under different lighting conditions and got different results. Gosh.

2. Wright says nose out is debris exiting the building, either and engine or a landing gear. There is no exit hole, nor any reason debris could be a size and shape indistiguishable from a 767 nose.
Wright actually said the exiting debris is likely something large and heavy, such as the landing gear or an engine. There is in fact an exit hole, and I have already established that the poor quality of the video makes the randomly shaped debris appear superficially similar to the shape of the jet nose, but that is simply coincidental. Try to keep up Ace.

Actually, we now have solved 9/11. The videos are proven fakes, and we have Steve Wright to thank for providing us the missing pieces. Until Mr. Wright appeared on Hardfire, and sat for my interview, there was no official story on the fake videos. My questions had simply gone unanswered for the most part.

-Ace Baker
Actually, 9/11 was solved long ago. The no-brainers ... I mean no-planers are proven fakes. I did not sit for Ace's interview. He simply presented one flaky observation after another which I cheerfully gutted like a day-old fish.

In the immediate aftermath of the Hardfire shows Ace was showing signs of reconsidering his position in light of the insights provided. Later, he "recovered" and decided to use what he had learned about compositing from me to try to improve his arguments. Sadly, it would appear that Ace's prognosis is not good.

[Alt+F4]

Sadly, it would appear that Ace's prognosis is not good.

Of course not, because he is :rule10ing crazy.

I'm he surprised he's not stalking the NYC Chief Medical Examiner's Office claiming that that the human remains identified from the victims of AA11 and UA175 are fake.

[Pardalis]

In the immediate aftermath of the Hardfire shows Ace was showing signs of reconsidering his position in light of the insights provided. Later, he "recovered" and decided to use what he had learned about compositing from me to try to improve his arguments. Sadly, it would appear that Ace's prognosis is not good.

I was hesitant to watch the show or even read this thread because, for one thing, I think no-planers are just creepy. But also, I think to give those people who have clearly mental issues any attention or even a platform is rather disturbing. It will only push them further into their "problem". Everything we say to them they will incorporate into their dementia. It will only reinforce their distorted beliefs.

So as much as I enjoyed the utterly crushing arguments you and Ron have provided, the rational approach and respectful attitude towards Ace, this was bound to happen.

I think I was right in the first place, when I didn't want to watch the show. Although it was a great exercise in critical thinking, and very informative, all in all I can't help but to be a little conscience-stricken.

The only professional who should talk to Ace about this is a psychologist, or psychiatrist.

I mean no disrespect to M. Wright and Wieck, quite the contrary.

[gumboot]

Run away Steve,

You came to this because it was an interesting riddle from a technical perspective, but it will never remain so. You've given Ace your answers, but like the fabled Hydra he will continue to rise up for eternity. We've had many like Ace in these forums and they are impervious to logic and reason.

I think the ultimate example is those ones regarding an alleged "stand down" of the Air Defense system on 9/11. We have, amongst our posters here, Cheap Shot, who was the Military Liason at Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center on 9/11, who first notified the US military of the first hijacking, and who ended up, by virtue of happen stance, to be the lynch pin upon which the entire US military response rested that day.

Regarding this WESCAM shot of UA175's impact, he's the equivalent of the camera operator. He was actually there. You would think his personal experience, his insight into the actual events and what actually happened, would matter. But it doesn't. Conspiracy Theorists with not a fraction of understanding about the FAA or NORAD will quite happily sit there and tell Cheap Shot he's wrong about what happened on 9/11.

If you think your expertise will register with them, you are mistaken. If you think your easy-to-understand, well thought out, and most of all sensible and logical explanations will register with them, you are mistaken. If you think you will ever change their minds, you are mistaken.

[Steve Wright]

Well said, Gumboot. I suspected that this would be the case, but this was my first foray into the twilight zone and I did want to engage the beast, even if it refuses to die. As I told Ron before we did Hardfire, our objective was not to convince the delusional, but to convince the rest of the audience. In that, I think we have done a good job.

[pomeroo]

A loon who calls himself "simonshack" is now disparaging Steve's expertise. Needless to say, he won't be attempting to peddle his snake oil here.

I regret nothing. I am delighted to have met Steve Wright, who is as charming as he is knowledgeable. The faint hope I entertained that Ace might be jolted to his senses was always a forlorn one. We can hope for miracles, but we shouldn't expect them.

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't think the conspiracy nuts should prevent an interesting technical discussion on the causes of these things. I'm still curious about the black out thing. Not because of any possibility of a conspiracy, but simply in learning about the whole process. I'f love to find out the exact cause. Not because the answer matters, just the process of research.

[Confuseling]

I was hesitant to watch the show or even read this thread because, for one thing, I think no-planers are just creepy. But also, I think to give those people who have clearly mental issues any attention or even a platform is rather disturbing. It will only push them further into their "problem". Everything we say to them they will incorporate into their dementia. It will only reinforce their distorted beliefs.

So as much as I enjoyed the utterly crushing arguments you and Ron have provided, the rational approach and respectful attitude towards Ace, this was bound to happen.

I think I was right in the first place, when I didn't want to watch the show. Although it was a great exercise in critical thinking, and very informative, all in all I can't help but to be a little conscience-stricken.

The only professional who should talk to Ace about this is a psychologist, or psychiatrist.

I mean no disrespect to M. Wright and Wieck, quite the contrary.

I have to disagree with you here. There's an apposite exchange in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest: "Yeah, well, it don't help him none."; "Well, it don't hurt him, either, does it?"

I just can't see it affecting him either way; he's so far into his conviction that I don't think anybody apart from a team of mental health professionals will shift him. Let us not forget that the vast majority of religious beliefs would be considered psychotic if they were unpopular; should we avoid questioning them?

It is true, the programme could have been done exploitatively, and it could have been done mockingly - but to my taste it wasn't.

Whether it served any really useful intrinsic purpose is more debatable, but Pom has stated that the programme has had correspondence from 'no-planers' or their respective fence-sitters indicating a level of interest justifying an examination. I don't know whether they could run with it for long, but giving it a cursory glance doesn't seem unwarranted.

But beyond the intrinsic purpose, it generated an interesting discussion; and if it continues to do so, then until you have some specific reason to think you're harming him, I think discussion is permissible.

[Pardalis]

It is true, the programme could have been done exploitatively, and it could have been done mockingly - but to my taste it wasn't.

I agree, kudos for Weick and Wright for that.

But beyond the intrinsic purpose, it generated an interesting discussion; and if it continues to do so, then until you have some specific reason to think you're harming him, I think discussion is permissible.

I just think it reinforces his problem, now he vows to incorporate what he learned on the show to better his "research"... I mean that was the only outcome wasn't it? You could see this coming a mile away.

He'll just continue to waste his time and talent to this lost cause of his. Of course I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis on him but he's clearly having problems with reality, and he's obsessed about this. Maybe we should let him with his imaginary world and continue his life's work on this ridiculous theory but I just don't think we should be complicit is all.

Anyway, with all due respect to Wright and Weick, do we really need to debunk no-planers?

[CptColumbo]

Does anyone know what the Jew-hating loon is raving about?
The Pizza thing made me laugh. Otherwise it was almost complete gibberish.

To paraphrase Lisa: I know what the words mean, but the post has no meaning.

[david carmichael]

The gapping flaw in the logic of the “fake video” enthusiasts is that to assert that any one video is fake you must then also assert that they are all fake. It cannot be true that just one video is faked but all the other videos are real. Either they are all real, or they are all faked.

My goodness, that is INDEED a "gaping flaw", old chum.... Just what the pro-Zionists needed around this forum---someone like you to point out "gaping flaws"

Hold on a sec.... that all the video/photos are fake(including "amateur footage") IS EXACTLY what the fake-video enthusiasts DO maintain.... and then they go out and examine every photo to back up their assertions.

So then...if I'm not missing something... instead of pointing out a "gaping flaw" COULD YOU INSTEAD be setting up a "straw man" argument ONLY TO knock the straw man down & claim victory?



If there exists only one real video of a jet crashing into the tower then a jet really did crash into the tower no matter how many “fakes” are “exposed” using flaky analysis and faulty reasoning.

Agreed...and one fiberglass nose coming out of the penetration is ridiculous...

But Steve...JUST WHAT WOULD a producer INTENTIONALLY CUTTING OUT in a "fade-to-black" look like?

Would an intentional fade-to-black cut-out it look like what we see in the Chopper 5 footage?


As for the video camera AGC and iris discussion, do what I did. Show the footage to a real video engineer, ask him to inspect the nature of the picture content, and explain the dip to black. The conjectures of all the laymen on the planet cannot clarify a technical issue like this.

Well, I can hardly wait to get the take of a PHOTO expert like yourself on what MOSSAD AGENT, Sivan Kurzburg was taking responsibility for in that photo that was seized by the Jersey Police when he was arrested near the George Washington Bridge.

Steve...was Kurzburg taking responsibility for the WTC attacks in that photo?


I am reminded of the story of a child that brought a kitten to his kindergarten class. Puzzling on whether the kitten was a boy or a girl, the kindergarteners decided to vote on it. Let us stop voting on this issue.

I'm reminded of a story also , Steve... It was of MOSSAD Agents arrested on 9/11/2001 by the NYPD MYSTERIOUSLY being able to "predict the future" by RENTING a van AND THEN painting a mural on it of a plane crashing into NYC

Of course, those UNBELIEVERS in the NYPD don't subscribe to the notion that ANYONE can predict the future OTHERWISE they'd be picking the winning lottery numbers each week...

...so the NYPD did what they usually do when faced with such CONFUSION---they kicked the living s--- out of those MOSSAD AGENTS.

Steve Wright--explain the ability of the MOSSAD AGENTS to predict the future--- let's stop voting on it and finally ADMIT that

"9/11 was NOT an inside job" BUT INSTEAD "9/11 was an OUTSOURCED job" which put perhaps dozens of American terrorists within the US Military-industrial complex out of work/employment that day of 9/11/2001

[beachnut]

...

"9/11 was NOT an inside job" BUT INSTEAD "9/11 was an OUTSOURCED job" which put perhaps dozens of American terrorists within the US Military-industrial complex out of work/employment that day of 9/11/2001

You wave your hands, have no evidence and make up lies, fantasy, and pure stupid.

You are voting, you are wrong. Relax, all of 9/11 truth is void of evidence and wrong about 9/11. 7 years of stupid wrong.

[T.A.M.]

dear jesus christ of dead threads, for the love and honor of ****.

Would the no-planers and the anti-semites just crawl back under their rocks please!!!

TAM

Edit: by the way, david, you speak, david, like Sarah Palin, David. Have you ever noticed that David, how you use the persons name way too much David.

TAM;)

[david carmichael]

Well said, Gumboot. I suspected that this would be the case, but this was my first foray into the twilight zone and I did want to engage the beast, even if it refuses to die. As I told Ron before we did Hardfire, our objective was not to convince the delusional, but to convince the rest of the audience. In that, I think we have done a good job.

Well said to you, Steve Wright!!!

So what would a producer INTENTIONALLY cutting out in a "fade-to-black" look like?

Would an INTENTIONAL cut-out look like what we saw in the Chopper 5 footage?


...and Frames 15 & 38(nose out)...pixels can be counted and therefore PRESUMABLY compared as a percentage

YouTube search terms: "nosed" "out"

What percentage of pixels match?

What does the debris look like?

1) a fast moving cloud as one of the pro-Zionists here maintained?
2) a cabbage as ANOTHER pro-Zionist here at JREF maintained
3) chocalate fudge as YET ANOTHER pro-Zionist has maintained on YouTube comments section if I recall correctly

or

4) whatever YOUR ANSWER was when Ace Baker asked you what it looked like in the HardFire shows...JUST WHAT was your answer, Steve and can you direct us to the video's chrono-timer to show us your answer?

or

5)..does it look like the nose cone of a jet liner?

[dtugg]

So I take it that you are a WTC no planer, genius? Well, I was there, it definitely freaking happened.

As for your off topic anit-semite ranting about the dancing Israeli's, what the hell kind of spies working on a false flag terrorist mission act in such a supposedly suspicious manner, genius?

[david carmichael]

You wave your hands, have no evidence and make up lies, fantasy, and pure stupid.

Hello beachnut!!!

My old pro-Zionist friend!!!!

Ohhhhh...this is truly a GREAT DAY having you reply to one of my postings.

What evidence did I fabricate, beachnut?

1) The Kurzburg photo?
2) The Mineta Transportation Report about the mural painted on the van?
3)Both?:)

[beachnut]

Hello beachnut!!!

My old pro-Zionist friend!!!!

Ohhhhh...this is truly a GREAT DAY having you reply to one of my postings.

What evidence did I fabricate, beachnut?

1) The Kurzburg photo?
2) The Mineta Transportation Report about the mural painted on the van?
3)Both?:)

No wonder why your truth movement is overrun with neoNAZIs, it is the dirt dumb content of your message.

... What evidence did I fabricate, beachnut?...
The stupid story tying this tripe to 9/11. Dumb it down more and you will have more neoNAZI followers join your failed idea march to the truth you have no evidence. 7 years, no evidence. Cool


Do you have a stupid story to go with your failed rant of fantasy, hearsay and lies?

[chillzero]

Keep it civil, and on topic.

ETA: Further off topic posts removed. Get it on topic, or further mod actions will follow.

[david carmichael]

Edited for topic.

1) So ...on the Ace Baker/Steve Wright HardFire interview...what was Steve Wright's response when Ace asked him what shape the supposedly ejected debris looked like?

2) What would a producer INTENTIONALLY "cutting out" in a "fade-to-black" look like?

Would it look like what we saw in the Chopper 5 footage?

[dtugg]

Hey genuis, I saw the second plane hit with my own eyes. Why, in your expert opinion, would the joooos fake video of something that actually happened?

[Bell]

dtugg, jeez, how horrible that must have been :(

Also, David Carmichael, since you seem to be a no-planer, I wish to congratulate you. You and the other no-planers (and space beam advocates and clunkety-clunk nuts) have hurt the truth movement more than we debunkers could ever have. For that, you have my upmost respect! Keep up the good work!

[dtugg]

Yeah it was pretty horrible, definitely something I will never forget. I was only 15 at the time.

I told Ace about it when he was posting here under a sock a couple of months ago. Of course, he didn't believe me. He also demanded my personal info. Yeah right, like I would give it to that psycho, he would have just branded me a liar either way anyway.