Seeking Review of 9/11 Video Composite Treatise

[pomeroo]

Actually, Ace Baker went to Purdue and interviewed the gentlemen who produced the simulations - Mete Sozen and Voicu Popescu.

Baker questioned Mr. Popescu about several impossible events in the Purdue animation, for example a floor assembly that is undamaged after a large piece of shrapnel slices right through it.

Remember, the Purdue animations were allegedly based entirely on an engineering simulation.

Popescu produced a version of the animaton that had that particular sequence edited out, and pretended not to know what Baker was talking about. He pretended not to know how to step through the animation one frame at a time. Baker showed Popescu, who is a professor of computer science, the arrow keys on his keyboard. Eventually Baker showed Popescu the longer version, and Popescu was unable to explain the anomalies.

Sozen agreed to release to Baker his simulation data. Thusfar, he has not done so. The Purdue simulation data appears unavailable. Requests for a full resolution copy of the complete video were also ignored.

What evidence do we have that the Purdue animation is anything more than a cartoon?


Based on my personal dealings with Ace Baker, I would assume that he is lying about his experience at Purdue. There is absolutely no reason to accept his word that he reported the conversations accurately. He has frequently misprepresented Steve Wright's positions since their debate.

[Dave Rogers]

In this case (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-terror9-2008sep09,0,7060837.story) 3 Britons were accused of conspiracy to use liquid bombs on planes. Prosecutors thus were offering a "conspiracy theory". The accused denied their guilt. Therefore they were among "those who question the conspiracy theory". The prosecution theory thus "requires those questioning the conspiracy theory to be a part of the conspiracy".

Fail. Mackey's point has gone sailing far over your head.

The point of the inflationary limit is that it requires, even hypothetically, that anyone questioning the conspiracy theory be part of the conspiracy.

The purpose of a court of law is to examine the evidence against the accused and to determine whether that evidence passes the standard of proof required by the legal code in force. Therefore, the function of the court, if we were to accept your assertion that the prosecutors were offering a "conspiracy theory", is to question the theory offered by the prosecutors. In this case, the prosecution's case did not rest on the assumption that the judge and jury were members of the conspiracy. Most importantly, neither did it rest on the assumption that the defense counsel, whose function is hostile questioning of the prosecution's case, were members of the conspiracy.

Therefore, even if this were a conspiracy theory, by definition it fails even to approach the inflationary limit.

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Fail. Mackey's point has gone sailing far over your head.

The point of the inflationary limit is that it requires, even hypothetically, that anyone questioning the conspiracy theory be part of the conspiracy.

The purpose of a court of law is to examine the evidence against the accused and to determine whether that evidence passes the standard of proof required by the legal code in force. Therefore, the function of the court, if we were to accept your assertion that the prosecutors were offering a "conspiracy theory", is to question the theory offered by the prosecutors. In this case, the prosecution's case did not rest on the assumption that the judge and jury were members of the conspiracy. Most importantly, neither did it rest on the assumption that the defense counsel, whose function is hostile questioning of the prosecution's case, were members of the conspiracy.

Therefore, even if this were a conspiracy theory, by definition it fails even to approach the inflationary limit.

Dave

The word "anyone" does not appear in Mackey's Axiom.

Nor does the term "even hypothetically".

Assuming your interpretation of Mackey's Axiom, so-called 9/11 conspiracy theories do not meet his inflationary limit, because millions of people support the official story, yet need not have been part of the conspiracy.

[Dave Rogers]

Assuming your interpretation of Mackey's Axiom, so-called 9/11 conspiracy theories do not meet his inflationary limit, because millions of people support the official story, yet need not have been part of the conspiracy.

Wrong again. We are continually informed by many truther posters on this forum that the supporters of the official story are sheeple, prepared to go along with the government's account unquestioningly in blissful unawareness of the true nature of the forces that oppress them, and that anyone who even begins to consider the possibility that reality is not as they have been told can only come to the conclusion that the evidence for an inside job on 9/11 is irrefutable. In this world view, there are only three possible types of people: those who ignore the conspiracy theory, and hence do not question it; those who have become aware of it, and seek to expose it; and those who are complicit in trying to maintain the ignorance of the masses by manufacturing spurious evidence against it. This is the characteristic of a theory whose proponents have achieved the inflationary limit. Whether or not you personally hold this opinion, there are plenty here who, at the very least, express it quite forcefully.

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Wrong again. We are continually informed by many truther posters on this forum that the supporters of the official story are sheeple, prepared to go along with the government's account unquestioningly in blissful unawareness of the true nature of the forces that oppress them, and that anyone who even begins to consider the possibility that reality is not as they have been told can only come to the conclusion that the evidence for an inside job on 9/11 is irrefutable. In this world view, there are only three possible types of people: those who ignore the conspiracy theory, and hence do not question it; those who have become aware of it, and seek to expose it; and those who are complicit in trying to maintain the ignorance of the masses by manufacturing spurious evidence against it. This is the characteristic of a theory whose proponents have achieved the inflationary limit. Whether or not you personally hold this opinion, there are plenty here who, at the very least, express it quite forcefully.

Dave

Wrong again. We are continually informed by the mainstream media that the supporters of the "liquid bombers" are terrorists, prepared to go along with the terrorist's account unquestioningly in blissful unawareness of the true nature of the forces that threaten them, and that anyone who even begins to consider the possibility that reality is not as they have been told can only come to the conclusion that the evidence for a frame-up in the liquid bomber case is irrefutable. In this world view, there are only three possible types of people: those who ignore the conspiracy theory, and hence do not question it; those who have become aware of it, such as the attorneys in the liquid bomber case, and seek to expose it; and those who are complicit in trying to maintain the ignorance of the masses by manufacturing spurious evidence against it, such as the investigators and prosecutors. This is the characteristic of a theory whose proponents have achieved the inflationary limit. Whether or not you personally hold this opinion, there are plenty in the mainstream media who, at the very least, express it quite forcefully.

-Steve

[Dave Rogers]

Wrong again. We are continually informed by the mainstream media that the supporters of the "liquid bombers" are terrorists, prepared to go along with the terrorist's account unquestioningly in blissful unawareness of the true nature of the forces that threaten them, and that anyone who even begins to consider the possibility that reality is not as they have been told can only come to the conclusion that the evidence for a frame-up in the liquid bomber case is irrefutable.

No, we're not informed of any such thing. I know it's a clever joke to re-word someone else's post to convey the opposite point of view - I've done it myself - but this sentence has no bearing on reality; it's the truth movement, not the media, that routinely claims that anyone who disagrees with their point of view is either deliberately hostile or too complacent to care.


In this world view, there are only three possible types of people: those who ignore the conspiracy theory, and hence do not question it; those who have become aware of it, such as the attorneys in the liquid bomber case, and seek to expose it; and those who are complicit in trying to maintain the ignorance of the masses by manufacturing spurious evidence against it, such as the investigators and prosecutors.

You seem a little confused here. If the conspiracy theory is that the liquid bombers carried out the actions stated, then it's the defenders who are manufacturing spurious evidence against it. If the conspiracy theory is that there's a frame-up, then that's a conspiracist viewpoint, and your attempt to demonstrate symmetry between the two sides of the debate is rather weakened by the fact that both the viewpoints you're portraying are, in fact, on the same side.

Next time, think a little more before posting. It's an easy trap to fall into with an edit job like this. Try to figure out which side of the argument you want to portray and stick to it, because if you switch sides mid-stream like this, nobody will understand what point you're trying to convey.

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Yes, you're right, I switched it around bass ackwards. Next time I will not hurry.

You get the idea.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

So, where is any evidence that "truthers" claim everybody who supports the official story are required to be conspirators?

[Dave Rogers]

You get the idea.

No, because you haven't justified your position. Your argument in the liquid bomber conspiracy example was that the conspirators questioned the conspiracy in their defense, therefore everyone who questions the conspiracy is part of the conspiracy. That's a classic statement of the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and as my counter-example of the defense counsel shows it's simply wrong. Therefore, your statement that this "conspiracy theory", as you misleadingly describe it, meets the inflationary limit, is unfounded and demonstrably incorrect.

You're committing the classic conspiracist's fallacy of starting from a conclusion you want to justify, then advancing the first fallacious line of reasoning you can think of to justify it. In this case you've had to adjust reality and logic to prove your point. That doesn't work.

So, where is any evidence that "truthers" claim everybody who supports the official story are required to be conspirators?

Classic bait-and-switch tactics; when your position becomes indefensible, try to shift discussion to the counter-example and claim that a disproof somehow validates your refuted position. Evidence is easy to find that several truthers take this point of view, as you can see from posts that refer to "JREF shills", advise the prosecution for treason of anyone who isn't demanding a new investigation, and call for the summary execution of Mark Roberts.

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I couldn't find anyone claiming that everyone who supports the official story is part of the conspiracy. Mackey's axiom is a strawman. The posters on JREF are a tiny minority of those who support the official story.

You are the one who is switching the subject, by avoiding the issues.

What are the odds that two networks and a documentary film lost picture within 1/4 second of each other, by accident?

[Corsair 115]

IWhat are the odds that two networks and a documentary film lost picture within 1/4 second of each other, by accident?And what are the odds that some forty videos could all be faked with such precision that none of the best special effects experts in the world (who surely would have seen these videos numerous times on the news) noticed the fakery? What are the odds that thousands of people didn't see something with their own eyes that they thought they did? What are the odds that the large amount of fake physical evidence could be created, transported, and planted on the scene without anybody noticing? What are the odds that all the news reporters (both American and non-American) would go along with reporting aircraft when there were no aircraft? What are the odds that the airlines of the particular jets would say that their aircraft struck the WTC towers when the actually didn't? What are the odds that the air traffic control system would track aircraft which didn't actually exist?

Do you understand anything about the totality of the evidence?

Do you have any conception of how ludicrous the no plane hypothesis is? Do you realize that by giving this theory any consideration you've reduced yourself to the sad level of Apollo moon hoax conspiracists?

By the way, have you looked up resolution yet?

[Dave Rogers]

You are the one who is switching the subject, by avoiding the issues.

Please list the issues you've raised that I've avoided. This shouldn't include the issue of whether there are members of the truth movement who believe that all who disagree with the conspiracy theory are part of the theory; we are, in fact, discussing that issue, which is a strange way of avoiding it.

What are the odds that two networks and a documentary film lost picture within 1/4 second of each other, by accident?

In this case, it would appear, unity, as we are describing not a future hypothetical event but a past real one. You really need to understand probability a bit better. Deal yourself a poker hand. What are the a priori odds of you having been dealt that exact hand? The answer is, about two and a half million to one. Does that mean you didn't really deal it?

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Dave, you know what I am asking. You're avoiding the issue, and you know it.

I understand probability well, thank you. We can specify the conditions in advance, and consider comparable events.

What are the odds, a priori, that during a live news event, which was also captured by documentary filmmakers, that two networks and the documentary film would all accidentally lose picture within 1/4 second of each other?

Further, that this would occur during (arguably) the most important few seconds of the day's events?

Are there any other live news events which had 3 simultaneous blackouts occur, ever, in the history of video?

Either it happened by chance, or it was intentional.

[Jonnyclueless]

Steven, considering that they were all broadcast through a tower that was part of the buildings that were hit, the probability is extremely high. Luckily there was a relay to kick in and keep video going after the power surge.

PS - For those of us who were actually there, these kind of fake video idiocy posts are quite amusing.

[A W Smith]

Steven.. speaking of avoiding the issue and asking quiestions, you never followed up to refute my answer to your question. why is that?

Again
A W Smith, do you claim that live compositing is not possible?

I claim that live composting that matches what thousands of people see live at the exact same moment is impossible. yes

[ktesibios]

The hijacked jetliner that stuck Tower 1 of the World Trade Center knocked eight of New York's most biggest TV stations off the air for at least a day. The doomed building housed their transmitters and supported the rooftop tower with their broadcast antennas...

Of the major New York stations, only CBS's WCBS-TV, was able to stay on the air throughout last week's ordeal, switching quickly to its backup transmitter and antenna at the Empire State Building.

By Wednesday, Tribune's WPIX-TV, WABC-TV and WNBC-TV had made temporary arrangements to resume broadcasting. WPIX-TV, an affiliate of The WB, returned at "substantially less" than half power using a low-power transmitter and two north-facing panel antennas at the Empire State Building, according to engineer Michael Gano...

At deadline last Friday, other stations, notably Fox's WNYW-TV and WWORTV (UPN), were still not putting out a broadcast signal. "We're scrambling right now," said Fox engineer Dennis Beattie...

Time Warner Cable and Cablevision, which serves the city, were able to continue carrying the broadcast signals because they receive them via fiber links rather than off air. However, Comcast Cable, which serves suburban New Jersey, does pick up the New York signals up off air. To restore ABC and NBC programming to its customers after the tower went down, a representative said, Comcast had to switch to its Philadelphia affiliates...

CNN lost a fixed microwave receive facility on the 110th floor of Tower 1, which was used to bounce live video signals from ENG vans around the city to CNN's studios near Madison Square Garden...

Nine stations operated separate transmission facilities between the 103rd and 110th floors. CNN also operated a microwave facility on the 110th floor, but no one was there at the time the building came down.

Sauce (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA159467.html)

Rather an "all your eggs in one basket" situation, no?

And here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtcprimaryandemergencyelectricalpower) is a description of the electrical power distribution system at the WTC complex. I would not be surprised at all if the effects of the impact into WTC2 caused a temporary voltage drop in the supplies to the TV facilities in WTC1, at least until the faults produced by a big honkin' airplane smashing into WTC2 burned clear or the protective relaying tripped the faulted feeders off the system.

We don't know if any of the broadcast stations had, like CNN, relay transceivers in WTC1. If so, a disruption of the links between ENG crews on the scene and their studios would be no surprise.

Your second mistake is in thinking that the disruptions experienced by more than one station had to be independent events, in which case the probability of multiple failures would be the product of the probabilities of each individual system failing. Since TV broadcasting plant was concentrated in the WTC complex, the failures would not be independent.

Your first mistake is in hauling out the conspiracist's standard-issue "what are the odds" argument from incredulity.

I really have to ask: are you really as unteachable as you appear or is it an act designed to draw attention?

[calebprime]

Steven, considering that they were all broadcast through a tower that was part of the buildings that were hit, the probability is extremely high. Luckily there was a relay to kick in and keep video going after the power surge.

PS - For those of us who were actually there, these kind of fake video idiocy posts are quite amusing.

Sauce (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA159467.html)

Rather an "all your eggs in one basket" situation, no?

And here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtcprimaryandemergencyelectricalpower) is a description of the electrical power distribution system at the WTC complex. I would not be surprised at all if the effects of the impact into WTC2 caused a temporary voltage drop in the supplies to the TV facilities in WTC1, at least until the faults produced by a big honkin' airplane smashing into WTC2 burned clear or the protective relaying tripped the faulted feeders off the system.

We don't know if any of the broadcast stations had, like CNN, relay transceivers in WTC1. If so, a disruption of the links between ENG crews on the scene and their studios would be no surprise.

Your second mistake is in thinking that the disruptions experienced by more than one station had to be independent events, in which case the probability of multiple failures would be the product of the probabilities of each individual system failing. Since TV broadcasting plant was concentrated in the WTC complex, the failures would not be independent.

Your first mistake is in hauling out the conspiracist's standard-issue "what are the odds" argument from incredulity.

I really have to ask: are you really as unteachable as you appear or is it an act designed to draw attention?

Thank you, guys. I was idly thinking the same thing.

[dtugg]

I wonder what the odds are that they faked video of an event that perhaps hundreds of thousands of people saw in real life only to make it look exactly the same as it really happened.

[rwguinn]

Thank you, guys. I was idly thinking the same thing.
What are the odds mthat a direct lightning strike on the Substation at 2nd and Sycamore in Roswell, NM will cause all the lights to go out in that quadrant of town.
Aliens! The mothership is landing!

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

The blackouts cannot be a signal interruption, as explained quite clearly by Steve Wright, and a year earlier by Ace Baker.

In Chopper 5, certainly, video sync is maintained, scan lines remain coherent.

The failure of broadcast antennae on WTC1 is irrelevant. We are not talking about anyone's RF broadcast to the public. We are talking about Chopper 5's picture, which went to black. Black is a picture, signal was not lost.

With CNN, they are dissolving between the ABC shot and somebody's closeup of the towers, when it goes black. We know the ABC shot did not break up, because ABC ran the whole shot. There is a frame of noise when picture comes back up from black.

Signal interruption can explain the noise frame, but not the black.

With Naudet, the situation is even more disturbing. They made an edit in their film, right during the same time. They took out perhaps 1 second or so. Why?

Of course, these blackouts all occur during the exact time that would show the fate of pinocchio's nose.

Besides signal interruption, does anyone have any explanation?

[HyJinX]

Eyewitnesses that saw the planes hit trump you and all this nonsense.

[dtugg]

I am no expert in video, so I cannot answer your questions. But then again neither are you or Ace Baker.

Please respond to this:

A plane hit the south tower of the WTC. I know this 100% for a fact because I saw it in real life. It looked exactly as is seen on video. Since this event really happened, do you think it makes any sense whatsoever to fake video of it? If your answer is no, why do even care about crazy person Ace Baker's amateur "analysis"?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I am no expert in video, so I cannot answer your questions. But then again neither are you or Ace Baker.

Please respond to this:

A plane hit the south tower of the WTC. I know this 100% for a fact because I saw it in real life. It looked exactly as is seen on video. Since this event really happened, do you think it makes any sense whatsoever to fake video of it? If your answer is no, why do even care about crazy person Ace Baker's amateur "analysis"?

It looked exactly as seen in which video? There are a number of contradictions.

Did you notice a shadow on the nose out, or not?

Did you see the puffball under the left wing? Or was it above the left wing?

And was the nose out a dust explosion, or an engine, or the nose, or what?

[HyJinX]

Steven...how do explain the eyewitnesses that actually saw the planes hit the buildings? This is critical to your point of view.

[A W Smith]

It looked exactly as seen in which video? There are a number of contradictions.

Did you notice a shadow on the nose out, or not?

Did you see the puffball under the left wing? Or was it above the left wing?

And was the nose out a dust explosion, or an engine, or the nose, or what?

Steven. he witnessed a big honkin plane fly into the tower. chopper five lacks the resolution to discern weather the nose out was any of the above as it was in another state three rivers away. the puffball discrepancy has everything to do with perspective and nothing to do with fakery. The "treatise" is a non starter. Admit now that you are a no planer.


I dont recall if Eric Salters debunking was posted in this thread yet.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/h/NPTrebuttal.pdf

but here it is


Rebuttal of Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" Analysis
29 July 2007
by Eric Salter
Many times in the past several years we've heard dramatic announcements of
definitive proof of no-plane and video fakery claims. These previous falsealarms
have proved to be mistakes and Ace Baker's analysis of the Fox 5
footage is no exception to this pattern.
Baker claims that the lower variability in the measurements of the plane's speed
in his control cases prove that the motion of the plane in the Fox 5 footage is
unnatural. This claim is in error. The control cases are not equivalent to the Fox
5 footage and do not shed light on the expected margin of error in the Fox 5
analysis. In fact, his control footage is sharper and lacks the noise and
distortion (visible in the wavy, rippled edge of the WTC towers) of the VHS
source for the Fox footage. The most important factor in stabilizing or tracking
motion is the clarity of detail of the tracked object and the consistency of that
detail from frame to frame and not so much on the number of pixels that object
occupies. It's not surprising that he achieved a lower error rate with his control
footage analysis.
The increase in variability in Baker's post-stabilization measurements of the Fox
5 footage is not suprising either: stabilization of that footage would not change
the variations in speed, except for some jitter caused by the software
stabilization process, which would generate errors due to the low quality of the
footage. The helicopter already had a mechanically stabilized camera system to
remove shakes and vibration, leaving only a steady drift to the left, probably
caused by the helicopter's movement. Stabilizing this footage removes the
same amount of movement from each frame, leaving the before and after
measured motion variations the same, except for the positioning jitter, which
can be seen in the higher variability in Baker's stabilized velocity graph.
So the only question remaining is: do these variations exceed what would be
the expected margin of error in measurement of the Fox 5 footage? For this an
attempt to calculate that error must be made.
The subjective placement of the wireframe over the plane image is definitely
going to create some error. The following diagram shows 3 possible
placements (at 800% magnification) of the wireframe over the image, one in a
center position and two other positions moved to the left and right .5 pixel. The
size of the pixels can be easily seen.
The center and left positioning are virtually indistinguishable, and the right
adjustment only barely looks out of alignment. So the exercise of visual
placement alone introduces a minimum margin of error of just less than 1 pixel.
And there are more factors which would add to the margin of error:
•Distortion of the shape of the profile of the plane from frame to frame due to
poor quality vhs footage.
•Stabilization usually calculates stabilization at a sub-pixel resolution. I've seen
jumps of a large fraction of a pixel when stabilizing high quality footage, yet the
Fox 5 footage is noisy, poor quality VHS footage (in fact, I had to make
adjustments to the stabilized Fox 5 footage by hand because of some errors in
the stabilizing process, and that manual process also certainly has a margin of
error). I don't know exactly what this additional error would be–only someone
with more experience in this subject can know this value with some confidence–
but a good sized fraction of a pixel seems like a bare minimum conservative
estimate.
Given the error in visual placement plus these other two factors, the margin of
error should be at least 1 pixel and could possibly be higher. A velocity
measurement uses two position measurements, therefore the minimum margin
of error in the velocity measurement would be 2 pixels or higher.
The following shows the stabilized Fox 5 footage with a wireframe overlay
placed over the plane and a timeline showing the change in position and speed
of that overlay:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/fox5velocity.html
Frames 12 and 13 were excluded from the velocity calculations because the
plane behind the graphic. The data for frames 1, 11, 14 and 22 might be less
reliable than the other measurement because only a small portion of the plane
was visible, but I included them anyway.
Now, if the plane is real and moving smoothly, the difference between two
velocity measurements should not exceed 2 pixels. This is exactly what is the
case, as shown in this graph of the velocity of the wireframe:
The largest change in speed between any consecutive frames is between
frames 2 and 3, 6 and 7, and 18 and 19: a 1.6 pixels/frame change, which is
less than the 2 pixels/frame minimum margin of error (corresponding to a .8
pixel error in position, which could be accounted for solely by the subjective
error in positioning the wireframe overlay). Thus, the motion of the plane in the
Fox 5 footage clearly matches the motion expected of a real plane.
Baker's measurements of larger errors are simply not representative of the
Fox5 footage, and are a result of less accurate placement and stabilization (by
the way, Baker apparently doubled the image size of the 640x480 footage
before measurement, resulting in motion of 20-25 pixels per second instead of
around 11-12. His values must be multiplied by .56 to be equivalent to the
values in my graph above, which come from the 720x480 footage at normal
scale).
One might argue that Baker couldn't have come up with such similar graphs of
velocity for the stabilized and non-stabilized versions of the Fox footage unless
those variations were authentic, but this would not be necessarily true: he could
have simply made the same subjective errors in positioning the wireframe both
times, resulting in similar graphs.
In regard to the exit of the plane, the alleged "nose cone" emerging from the
building is not the shape of the nose of the plane: it is very clearly thinner than
the nose of the airplane when it first exits the building, then grows in size to
approximate the shape of the nose, then continues to widen and starts to move
down a bit, which is exactly the behavior one would expect from a smaller piece
(or pieces) of debris pulling an expanding cloud of dust or smoke behind it. It
simply can't be part of a keyed plane image or CGI model. Because the shape
is changing Baker's motion tracking data of its velocity is pretty much
meaningless, and furthermore that data has generally the same amount of
variability as Baker's measurements of the plane, which means it's probably not
indicative of any abnormal motion for the same reasons the plane data is not.
So in summary:
•Baker's control cases are not equivalent to the Fox 5 footage and don't
contribute anything to the calculation of a margin of error.
•A conservative estimate of the margin of error in positioning the overlay on the
Fox 5 footage must be around 1 pixel (or more).
•The motion of the plane in the footage is well within this margin of error,
therefore the motion is natural and there is no evidence for video fakery.
There's really no need to read further but I have some more observations for
those who want to explore more. In addition to technical mistakes Baker's
article is filled with biased and illogical thinking.
His arguments show that he doesn't understand how keying and compositing is
achieved on a professional level. His idea that footage of a real plane was
chroma keyed live is absolutely silly. It would never be used when photorealistic

CGI
would better accomplish the task (unless the perps deliberately
wanted to emulate 1950's quality special effects and expose themselves). Not
only could CGI be perfectly synced to the motion of the background footage, it
could be cleanly overlaid, eliminating the problems with edge details that go
along with chroma keying. Keyed real footage would only be used when both
pieces of footage are shot using the same motion control camera movement,
which would match the motion of each perfectly and eliminate motion
anomalies of the type he says can be observed (and which aren't there
anyway). And if they did use live footage, it would not be keyed live but be
prepared ahead of time with keying and/or rotoscoping to create an image
digitally formatted with an alpha channel for a clean overlay (and they could
have easily fixed any variations in movement during that process). Besides, in
broadcast video, the "Sportsvision" technology he cites in his article is used
with CGI images, not chroma keyed footage.
The pink-colored artifacts he mislabels "digital paint" are artifacts resulting from
noise, poor quality VHS recording or compression.
Like all the other no-plane arguments, there are fatal logical flaws to the
scenario Baker argues. If an overlay was used, the Fox 5 footage shows that
the overlay was perfectly synced with the WTC towers: jets of dust come out of
building exactly where and when the plane hits (propelled by last second
operation of jet engines, as seen in the Fairbanks footage). This tells us that the
overlay of the plane would have been placed exactly where the alleged planted
explosives would have been in the building, confirmed again by the flames
coming out directly opposite on the other side of the building a split second
later. So the timing and positioning of overlay would have been precisely
coordinated with the camera movement. Therefore (since they would have used
CGI and nothing else) it doesn't make sense that there would be any irregular
movement of the overlay as Baker suggests. And it also follows that it doesn't
make any sense at all to suggest that the conspirators would mess up the exit
of the model from the building when the entry was absolutely perfect, AND
furthermore to suggest that they remembered to slow down the overlay during
it's penetration of the building (as seen in Baker's velocity graphs) yet forgot to
have it actually stop within the building. It seems that some no-planers simply
can't think logically.
Baker suggests that clear weather was essential to the conspirators plan
(because of their rather unprofessional plan to use chroma key). And just how
did they ensure clear weather for a date planned months in advance? Was God
in on the plot? Amazingly, this is even more ridiculous than the previous noplaner
assumption that the conspirators could have controlled all the cameras
in New York on 9/11.
In addition to his own claims, Baker cites a series of no-plane arguments (such
as that the plane in the Naudet footage is smaller than a 767) which not only
have already been thoroughly debunked

(and a long time ago too) but which
were debunked with analyses much simpler than the kind he himself attempts
in his article. Because of this, one is forced to assume he possesses a zealous
bias towards the no-plane scenario totally in contradiction to the scholarly tone
of his article.
Once again, I felt obliged to revisit this issue and conduct this analysis, since
this analysis is outside the expertise of other 9/11 researchers I know who are
working in this area. Unfortunately it was a royal waste of time, delivering totally
predictable results. The lack of a logical scenario for the no-plane theory should
be enough to invalidate it, but many people don't think logically and, sadly,
propaganda like this still has to be rebutted, as the unwary will be fooled1 by it's
veneer of authenticity.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

the puffball discrepancy has everything to do with perspective and nothing to do with fakery.

Explain this please.

[Jonnyclueless]

The blackouts cannot be a signal interruption, as explained quite clearly by Steve Wright, and a year earlier by Ace Baker.

In Chopper 5, certainly, video sync is maintained, scan lines remain coherent.

The failure of broadcast antennae on WTC1 is irrelevant. We are not talking about anyone's RF broadcast to the public. We are talking about Chopper 5's picture, which went to black. Black is a picture, signal was not lost.

With CNN, they are dissolving between the ABC shot and somebody's closeup of the towers, when it goes black. We know the ABC shot did not break up, because ABC ran the whole shot. There is a frame of noise when picture comes back up from black.

Signal interruption can explain the noise frame, but not the black.

With Naudet, the situation is even more disturbing. They made an edit in their film, right during the same time. They took out perhaps 1 second or so. Why?

Of course, these blackouts all occur during the exact time that would show the fate of pinocchio's nose.

Besides signal interruption, does anyone have any explanation?

We've already had threads that explain the blackout and how it occurred. Instead of going by crackpots like Ace Baker, go do a search. To say the blackouts cannot be signal interruption is pure idiocy and denial.

And again, to those of us who were there in person, these claims of video fakery are about as idiotic as it gets. Yes folks, let's do some video fakery for something that it being watched in person by at least a million people. And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously...

[dtugg]

It looked exactly as seen in which video? There are a number of contradictions.

Did you notice a shadow on the nose out, or not?

Did you see the puffball under the left wing? Or was it above the left wing?

And was the nose out a dust explosion, or an engine, or the nose, or what?

I was a little too far away (only like a mile still) and it happened too fast to really notice details like that. Besides, I was on the other side of the building than the chopper that shot the footage Ace claims was faked. My point was that a plane that looked exactly like the one in the videos flew into the exact place that it did in the videos. Since it really happened, faking video of it makes no sense whatsoever, even if 9/11 was some huge government plot. How can you not understand this? There is a reason that no-planers are regarded as crazy even by other truthers.


Does anyone think that Steven might really be Ace?

[A W Smith]

I was a little too far away (only like a mile still)

you were over four times closer than chopper five.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/chopper5milesaway.jpg



and it happened too fast to really notice details like that. Besides, I was on the other side of the building than the chopper that shot the footage Ace claims was faked. My point was that a plane that looked exactly like the one in the videos flew into the exact place that it did in the videos. Since it really happened, faking video of it makes no sense whatsoever, even if 9/11 was some huge government plot. How can you not understand this? There is a reason that no-planers are regarded as crazy even by other truthers.


Does anyone think that Steven might really be Ace?


Yes that thought crossed my mind. Steven is unshakable in the exact manner Ace was when he was here.

[twinstead]

I must keep hammering the point that there were many, many witnesses who saw the planes hit the building. How do these witnesses fit into your theory, SLG? You have never adequately addressed it.

[Reality Believer]

I must keep hammering the point that there were many, many witnesses who saw the planes hit the building. How do these witnesses fit into your theory, SLG? You have never adequately addressed it.
Agreed. Didn't anyone read Gravy's dissertation that ecoes many of us here. Why debate stupidity? It is a loosing battle. Ask the next obvious question. Keep to it and abandon the argument when no progress is made.

Don't feed the attention seekers. Set glue traps and starve them out.

[dtugg]

A.W. Smith, wasn't the Chopper 5 footage shot somewhere over the Bronx or something totally opposite of where you have it in New Jersey?

[A W Smith]

A.W. Smith, wasn't the Chopper 5 footage shot somewhere over the Bronx or something totally opposite of where you have it in New Jersey?


Nope

look at the bend in the river at the beginning of this video. And the very center of the video shows the pulaski skyway. I know this area well as i was born in jersey city and visited my relatives there almost bi monthly for three decades.

zLKYr5hA6s8

[dtugg]

OK, I haven't spent much time watching these videos and I guess I got it confused with another one. Nor do I know the area very well, I just happened to be there that day. Thanks for clearing it up.

[rwguinn]

you were over four times closer than chopper five.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/chopper5milesaway.jpg




Yes that thought crossed my mind. Steven is unshakable in the exact manner Ace was when he was here.

Yeah, but is dtugg equipped with a telephoto lens in his eye?

[Dave Rogers]

I understand probability well, thank you.

If that's true, then your insistence on applying a priori probabilities to the a posteriori analysis of a single event is even more indefensible.

We can specify the conditions in advance, and consider comparable events.

What are the odds, a priori, that during a live news event, which was also captured by documentary filmmakers, that two networks and the documentary film would all accidentally lose picture within 1/4 second of each other?

Further, that this would occur during (arguably) the most important few seconds of the day's events?

The answer is "irrelevant". Improbable events occur, and a sufficiently careful search through the events of any day as eventful as 9/11 will reveal many sets of events which may be portrayed individually as improbable. In order to overturn the immense body of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that flights AA11 and UA175 hit WTC1 and WTC2, extraordinary evidence is required. Cherry picking a coincidence and asking "How unlikely is that?" falls woefully short.

And this is a common theme to Baker's analysis. He highlights anything he can find that supports his agenda, and either ignores or deliberately misrepresents anything that points away from it. He's chosen a few aspects of the Chopper 5 shot that he claims support compositing, yet the entry of the airplane into shot only one frame ofter the completion of the zoom - an aspect that actually makes compositing the shot vastly more difficult in two respects that I've already pointed out - is claimed as a point in favour. And he also claims that the Chopper 7 shot has the same characteristics, when this isn't true.

In short, Baker is committing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy with a little added subtlety. He's picked a few observations that seem to have a low probability of occurrence, then constructed a theory a posteriori that assigns a high significance to those observations. He then commits the a priori - a posteriori fallacy by claiming that the low probability of those observations support his theory. As I said earlier, he's constructing a theory to fit his observations then claiming the fit as evidence for the theory. It's a perversion of the scientific method, as shown by the Pinnochio's Nose debate; when a prediction of his theory (constant speed of the nose through the building) is tested and found to be falsified, Baker simply adds another complication to his theory, without justification, and claims this as evidence in favour. It's Smacco's Razor in operation, and all it leads to is a more complex fantasy.

Either it happened by chance, or it was intentional.

Or there were multiple effects of a common cause. Watch out for these false dilemmas.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

It looked exactly as seen in which video? There are a number of contradictions.

Did you notice a shadow on the nose out, or not?

Did you see the puffball under the left wing? Or was it above the left wing?

And was the nose out a dust explosion, or an engine, or the nose, or what?

None of this is significant. The fundamental assumption of Ace's analysis is that no airplane hit WTC2. If an eyewitness claims to have seen an airplane hit WTC2, how do you propose to reconcile this with the thesis that no airplane hit WTC2?

Dave

[Arus808]

again guys, discussing the "video" is MOOT> Until ACE can provide an explanation as to WHY thousands of witnesses and hundreds of video and photography cameras CAPTURED the planes hitting the towers, there IS no debating needed here

AS asked numerous times over 8 pages, explain the WITNESSES.


Tell me why my aunt and uncle did not see what they saw the morning of 9/11/2001.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

We've already had threads that explain the blackout and how it occurred. Instead of going by crackpots like Ace Baker, go do a search. To say the blackouts cannot be signal interruption is pure idiocy and denial.



Steve Wright says the Chopper 5 blackout cannot be a signal interruption. You're calling Steve Wright an idiot and a denier.

If Steve Wright is an idiot and a denier, how do you consider credible anything he claimed on Hardfire?

[Arus808]

Explain the witnesses.

[ktesibios]

First, a great big :thanks to Dave Rogers, for a nice clear explanation of the nature of Ace Baker's fallacious reasoning. After years of hanging out in skeptic fora, I've gotten to the point where I can smell bad logic the same way I can smell the odor of burnt circuitry- at concentrations so low that normal people can't even detect it at all- but not being able to put a finger on the exact source of the smell can be remarkably frustrating.

Second, a few things about video signals. Even in the analog domain, the video switchers/mixers used in production applications are invariably genlocked to house sync, the result being that even if an input source is lost the switcher output will still contain sync pulses and colorburst, so the continued presence of sync in Channel 5's signal is not really diagnostic of anything.

Also, in standard NTSC video (here I refer to the baseband signal, not a signal modulated on an RF carrier), a 0 level is blacker than black. "Black" (or setup level) is defined as +7.5 IRE. White is +100IRE and sync tips are -40 IRE. An analog monitor with no input signal may display a gray screen because the absence of sync pulses deprives the DC restoration circuitry of a reference level to grab onto (video amplifier chains are generally not DC coupled all the way through; instead, the correct DC baseline is restored by clamping the sync tips to the correct voltage), but a signal containing sync with the active part of the scan at 0 volts will produce a black screen. (When such a signal also contains colorburst, we call it "blackburst" and distribute it around the studio for use as a timing reference.)

My area of knowledge is actually audio rather than video, but having spent ten years as the head tech at a studio that did a lot of audio-for-video production I spent a lot of time with my nose in a waveform monitor and vectorscope adjusting a TBC before making a 3/4" work dub. I had to learn this stuff.

The unknowns here are exactly how the receiving end of the RF links used for transmitting video from an ENG team to the studio react to a loss of signal and how the behavior of digital transmission differs from analog.

Third, I don't see anyone calling Steve Wright an idiot and denier directly, nor that this is implicit if one of his opinions is disputed. That sort of black/white thinking is classic conspiracist behavior and I suspect that Mr. Grossi is either indulging in projection or flailing about for some sort of cheap rhetorical trick to wield as a club. This all-or-nothing thinking is in my view evidence in favor of my hypothesis that conspiracism is essentially a phenomenon of the authoritarian-follower personality.

OTOH, when someone is led by the hand to a veritable Everest of evidence which all converges on the conclusion that no-planer claims are nothing but fantasies and yet continues to insist that the pathetic attempts of a no-planer to intellectualize his delusional beliefs are worthy of detailed analysis, "idiot and denier" might just be an apt description of his behavior.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

It is not Channel 5 that went black, it is the feed from the helicopter. The overlaid graphics remain onscreen during the blackout.

Of course the switcher is slaved to house sync (or generates house sync). This does not relieve the incoming signal of the obligation to remain in sync in order to produce a coherent picture.

Even if an interrupted signal could be overridden and replaced with black, picture would not fade to black, it would cut to black. How can you explain two video fields which are darker than normal, but not all the way down to black?

Baker, in his treatise, supplies an example of an interrupted helicopter camera feed, and it looks like what we expect - noise. Digital relays which break up are usually set to freeze frame.

Does anyone have any evidence of an interrupted microwave news relay signal, analog or digital, fading to black, other than Chopper 5?

[Dave Rogers]

:D Anyone who watches the video of WTC Building Number 7 collapse at the speed of gravity, so symmetrically, directly into its own footprint and says it was not a controlled demolition is either insane or part of the cover up.

Those who passionately attempt to protect the criminals actually responsible for this crime, like Mackey, are traitors who should be behind bars. He's far too intelligent to honestly believe the crap he's trying to sell. It's beyond ludicrous!

The CIA has numerous geeks like Mackey, extremely bright folks, who gladly compromise their integrity to serve their masters. They use their high powered minds in destructive ways, all for a dollar or just to amuse their twisted need for thrills. It's absurd. You'd better hope reincarnation is just a lie too because, if not, folks like Mackey will come back with club feet, hair lips, and really bad breath.

Mackey is like all those who call their self an atheist because they feel you can't be a true intellectual if you believe order requires intelligent direction. Again, truly absurd!

Folks like Mackey believe a tornado can pass through a junkyard and assemble a Rolls-Royce in the process. At least he would argue like hell to prove it's true. Just ridiculous.

So, where is any evidence that "truthers" claim everybody who supports the official story are required to be conspirators?

Dunno mate, never seen any round here.

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

He didn't say "everyone" is in on it. He says "Mackey" is in on it.

[Dave Rogers]

:D Anyone who watches the video of WTC Building Number 7 collapse at the speed of gravity, so symmetrically, directly into its own footprint and says it was not a controlled demolition is either insane or part of the cover up.

Those who passionately attempt to protect the criminals actually responsible for this crime, like Mackey, are traitors who should be behind bars. He's far too intelligent to honestly believe the crap he's trying to sell. It's beyond ludicrous!

He didn't say "everyone" is in on it. He says "Mackey" is in on it.

You're as good at not seeing things that are there as you are at seeing things that aren't.

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

"Those" doesn't necessarily mean "ALL of those". But assuming Bwinwright really thinks that everyone who disagrees with his position is "in on it", so waht?

OK?

Let's pretend Bwinwright said "Everyone who questions my conspiracy theory in any small way is a murderer and a traitor".

So what? That's one guy. That doesn't mean the conspiracy theory requires this. It just means Bwinwright thinks it requires it. He could be wrong about that, and correct about the theory per se.

THere have been individuals who accuse truthers of being terrorists. Does this mean that the official story requires truthers to be terrorists? Of course not.

Mackey was getting accused of being "in on it", and he devised a clever (il)logical construction to discourage such comments.

[A W Smith]

"Those" doesn't necessarily mean "ALL of those". But assuming Bwinwright really thinks that everyone who disagrees with his position is "in on it", so waht?

OK?

Let's pretend Bwinwright said "Everyone who questions my conspiracy theory in any small way is a murderer and a traitor".

So what? That's one guy. That doesn't mean the conspiracy theory requires this. It just means Bwinwright thinks it requires it. He could be wrong about that, and correct about the theory per se.

THere have been individuals who accuse truthers of being terrorists. Does this mean that the official story requires truthers to be terrorists? Of course not.

Mackey was getting accused of being "in on it", and he devised a clever (il)logical construction to discourage such comments.

Listen steven. It is really very simple
:D Anyone who watches the video of WTC Building Number 7 collapse at the speed of gravity, so symmetrically, directly into its own footprint and says it was not a controlled demolition is either insane or part of the cover up.




thats anyone who disgrees with him. he has clearly lost the argument.


again

this bears repeating (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2323813#post2323813)


Quote:
The Inflationary Limit of Conspiracy Theories is reached when it requires those questioning the conspiracy theory to be a part of the conspiracy. This final excuse occurs because any alternate hypothesis, no matter how well it fits the known facts, is viewed as a threat to the conspiracy hypothesis. No further inflation is possible because, when this point is reached, any criticism is considered suspect -- thus encompassing the entire world outside the conspiracy hypothesis.

Conversely, reaching the Inflationary Limit logically implies that any alternate hypothesis is superior to the conspiracy hypothesis.

Therefore, a conspiracy theory that reaches the Inflationary Limit is by definition the worst of all possible hypotheses

[Dave Rogers]

"Those" doesn't necessarily mean "ALL of those". But assuming Bwinwright really thinks that everyone who disagrees with his position is "in on it", so waht?

OK?

Let's pretend Bwinwright said "Everyone who questions my conspiracy theory in any small way is a murderer and a traitor".

Read the post, for pity's sake. That's exactly what he did say. "Either insane or part of the cover up." Are you so disconnected from reality that the only way you can accommodate a piece of evidence you dislike is to pretend that it's imaginary?

So what? That's one guy. That doesn't mean the conspiracy theory requires this. It just means Bwinwright thinks it requires it. He could be wrong about that, and correct about the theory per se.

Just to make it quite clear how ridiculous your position is here, you are trying to distance Bwinwright from the central substance of his own claim in order to try to create some remaining ground to stand on. He is presenting as his primary piece of evidence the claim that those who deny that WTC7 was very clearly demolished are doing so as part of the conspiracy, and you're claiming that he could be wrong and right about this at the same time. Your position is insane.

THere have been individuals who accuse truthers of being terrorists. Does this mean that the official story requires truthers to be terrorists? Of course not.

Correct, because the official story - being the account of what actually happened, in reality, on 9/11 rather than a conspiracy theory that denies all the evidence, is not a theory that approaches the inflationary limit. In other words, the behaviour of the official story that you describe is evidence of its validity.

Mackey was getting accused of being "in on it", and he devised a clever (il)logical construction to discourage such comments.

And now you're simply making things up. The above statement is a lie, and a deliberate one, in that you claim knowledge that you do not possess. Either preface any statements of this sort with "I think" in future, or say goodbye to any vestige of credibility on this forum.

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

LOL.

So therefore, by the same logic, the official story requires truthers to be terrorists. Just because a few supporters of the official story have made the claim.

It's a completely silly logical construction.

The "inside job" theory does not require everyone questioning it to have been a conspirator, irrespective of what Bwinwright says or thinks. Millions of people might simply accept the statements and claims of the official government reports, and might be able to recite answers that have been given to various truther claims.

I'll admit that the "inside job" theory would most certainly require some people questioning it, including some JREF posters to be conspirators, shills, liars, government disinformation agents.

[pomeroo]

Steve Wright says the Chopper 5 blackout cannot be a signal interruption. You're calling Steve Wright an idiot and a denier.

If Steve Wright is an idiot and a denier, how do you consider credible anything he claimed on Hardfire?


You continue to ignore certain facts that are painfully obvious. Ace Baker is mentally ill. His pathology drives him to bizarre behavior, such as hysterical outbursts of rage and compulsive lying. He knows nothing about physics or photography, although he does possess an enthusiastic amateur's knowledge of video compositing. Rasga Saias hates America and is one of the stupidest humans alive.

Here are a few of Steve Wright's comments about Ace's antics following the Hardfire debate:

"He thinks that by erroneously pointing out "problems" with the Chopper 5 video using ignorance and stupidity as his analytical tools that that will prove no planes. At my home I showed him 5 ways to tell the video was not faked, yet he has persisted. He has now incorporated me into his set of psychotic symptoms. I am sure he is going to take clips from your show plus the video that I so�graciously�allowed him to shoot in my home, edit it up, and self-publish it as some inane DVD �"proving" no planes and Wright a fool. Then he will put it on YouTube."


Hi Ron,

As you know, I am trying to disentangle myself from Baker's psychosis, but helping you fire a parting shot is too good to pass up. I have written the following material as though it were from you. Feel free to post it where it will do the most good.

Thanks.

Steve


###############################
It was apparently a mistake to let Ace Baker onto "Hardfire" with video compositing expert Steve Wright and show him and his "no-plane" claims any professional respect. At Baker's request, Wright even let him into his home to show him additional material that was not presented on the show due to lack of time. Baker has repayed the favor with fundamentally dishonest distortions and accusations. Wright, as an expert in video compositing, examined Baker's video "evidence" and declared it not to be a composite. Unable to impugn Wright's obvious credentials on the subject, Baker simply resorts to calling him a liar. How clever.

Finally realizing that Baker's real need is for continued attention, which Baker figures he can get by issuing endless streams of accusations and insults, Wright finally put Baker on his spam list to quiet this aggressive pest. Of course, now Wright has "crawled under a rock" (another accusation). The fact is that Wright has thoroughly demolished Baker's false claims and, with the issue settled, simply has more important things to do with his time, so he refuses to waste time engaging Baker any more.

However, Baker insists on trying to fool a lay audience with his amateur video "analysis" and authentic-sounding prattle. He simply garbles the facts as explained by Wright, then hoots and jeers at the resulting foolishness - which is, in fact, Baker's own foolishness. Here are just a few examples of Baker's attempts to keep the story alive with garbled facts, phony accusations, and fake controversy:

Baker:
As one hilarious note, Wright claims that because Chopper 5 is in an
interlaced video format, it cannot be a composite. By this reasoning,
Jurassic Park DVD shows real live dinosaurs.

Again, Baker has garbled the facts and tries to mislead the lay audience. Jurassic Park was composited at feature film resolution, shot out to film, then the finished film transfered to interlaced video, like all movies. The compositing was not done in interlaced video, and I am sure that Wright's friends at ILM will be enraged to hear Baker claim that it was. This example reveals Baker's persistent ignorance of the material he tries to use as "evidence".

Baker:
"Live compositing not possible" is another hilarious lie by Steve
Wright. What was required is real-time luma key.

Nobody said live compositing is not possible. The weatherman does it every night on the news. What Wright correctly stated was that lumakeying a pre-recorded jet video clip over a live video feed from a wobbling chopper camera AND motion-tracking it into position AND color correcting it AND matching the video noise AND matching the video interlaced lines - is not possible in real-time. Baker conveniently ignores this complete list of requirements in his video fakery rants.

Baker:
There is a huge fight brewing between Steve Wright and the executives
at Avid.

False controversy. There is no fight brewing between Steve Wright and the executives at Avid. The Avid executives have never even raised the topic of Baker with Wright. They, like Wright, simply have better things to do with their time than feed Baker's psychosis by responding to his inane allegations and garbled thinking.

Baker:
Avid makes live compositing systems. Steve Wright is calling them
liars. I'm going to push it until someone cries uncle. And it's going
to be Mr. Wright (aka Mr. Wrong).

Wright does not call his friends at Avid liars. Wright calls Baker a bumbling psychotic that cannot get the facts straight who continues to try to fool the lay audience with his phony "analysis". Baker simply needs to invent a controversy that does not exist in a pathetic attempt to get more attention for himself. Avid will wisely ignore Baker.

As we saw on "Hardfire", Baker actually believes that if you find a few people that did not see planes crash into towers, that proves planes didn't. In fact, that proves nothing. The truth is, if you found 1000 people that did NOT see it, but ONE that really did, then that one observer PROVES planes hit the towers. By Baker's logic, if we can find a few people that did not see him born, then he does not exist. We could only wish.

The final nail in Baker's silly coffin is Wright's conundrum, which goes like this: If there exists even one authentic news video, camcorder video, photograph, or eye witness to the planes hitting the towers, then the planes are proven. However, to prove no planes, then every single news video, camcorder video, photograph, and eye witness must be fake. To fake these hundreds of different sources plus keep the perpetrators of those fakes silent all these years is absurd on the face of it. Just like Ace Baker.


I had observed that the Chopper 5 scene darkened a tiny bit just as the plane touched the building and initially thought that it was due to the camera's AGC (Automatic Gain Control). Two other observations suggest this is wrong. First, Ace observed that if the plane was big enough to iris down the camera as it went behind the building then it should iris up the camera when it entered frame. Very good point. Second, I later noticed that the picture irised down the instant that the plane touched the building. The AGC circuits have a time lag to average�adjacent�frames which is not present with the plane touching the building but is present right after the explosion. For these two reasons I now think that the picture darkening a tiny bit just as the plane touches the building is an annoying coincidence, not a causal relationship.

Steve

[Dave Rogers]

So therefore, by the same logic, the official story requires truthers to be terrorists. Just because a few supporters of the official story have made the claim.

No. The official story does not require truthers to be terrorists, because there is no aspect of the events of 9/11 which requires, for al-Qaeda to achieve its purpose, that a group of idealogues should deny the reality of the attacks in the face of all the evidence. It has often been pointed out that the existence of the truth movement is in some ways convenient to al-Qaeda's aims, but that this is simply a happy coincidence for them. Besides, if, as many truthers claim (and you're no doubt now about to deny that they claim it!), the official story is the work of the Bush administration, then as long as the Bush administration has not accused the truth movement of working for al-Qaeda, then the notion that the truth movement is working for al-Qaeda cannot be part of the offical story.

It's a completely silly logical construction.

And all your own work. I hope you're proud.

The "inside job" theory does not require everyone questioning it to have been a conspirator, irrespective of what Bwinwright says or thinks. Millions of people might simply accept the statements and claims of the official government reports, and might be able to recite answers that have been given to various truther claims.

You just don't get it. There is no such thing as 'THE "inside job" theory', there are just fragmentary fantasies, roughly one per truther. Bwinwright's theory is not Ace Baker's, nor is it Jim Fetzers, Jim Hoffman's, Steven Jones's, Jim Fetzer's other theory that's incompatible with his first one, or Judy Wood's, and it's certainly not David Ray Griffin's because he claims he doesn't have one. A great many of these theories have reached Mackey's limit. Others are not there yet, but are getting there fast, as you can see by the fact that their proponents say things like:

I'll admit that the "inside job" theory would most certainly require some people questioning it, including some JREF posters to be conspirators, shills, liars, government disinformation agents.

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Here are a few of Steve Wright's comments about Ace's antics following the Hardfire debate:



Now with Ace Baker's replies, which I discovered here:

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/06/exchange-with-steve-wright.html


As one hilarious note, Wright claims that because Chopper 5 is in an interlaced video format, it cannot be a composite. By this reasoning, Jurassic Park DVD shows real live dinosaurs.


Again, Baker has garbled the facts and tries to mislead the lay audience. Jurassic Park was composited at feature film resolution, shot out to film, then the finished film transfered to interlaced video, like all movies. The compositing was not done in interlaced video, and I am sure that Wright's friends at ILM will be enraged to hear Baker claim that it was. This example reveals Baker's persistent ignorance of the material he tries to use as "evidence".

-Steve Wright


I never said movies were composited interlaced, exactly the opposite. Wright makes my point for me. In my paper, I state that the live composites are done progressive, then converted to interlaced. Of course Jurassic Park was composited in high resolution. That's MY point. It is Steve Wright who observes that Chopper 5 was given to him in an interlaced format, and then dishonestly concludes that the compositing must have been done in that format. I'm going to keep Wright's recorded words unchanged as he speaks of Chopper 5's interlacing, and substitute interlaced Jurassic Park footage. The audience will observe compositing expert Steve Wright "proving" the dinosaurs are real, the exact same way he "proved" the plane is real. And we will laugh hard. Or cry.

"Live compositing not possible" is another hilarious lie by Steve Wright. What was required is real-time luma key.

Nobody said live compositing is not possible. The weatherman does it every night on the news. What Wright correctly stated was that lumakeying a pre-recorded jet video clip over a live video feed from a wobbling chopper camera AND motion-tracking it into position AND color correcting it AND matching the video noise AND matching the video interlaced lines - is impossible in real-time. Baker conveniently ignores this complete list of requirements in his video fakery rants.

-Steve Wright


I ignore nothing, I've written the paper. Read it before you try the strawman argument.

Theory of Live 9/11 Video Composites

1. The Chopper is not "wobbling". The camera is gyroscopically stabilized. It presents a very stable shot. I still maintain that it was slightly unstable, measurably. Wright demonstrated that the airplane motion is pretty stable on the stabilized version of the video. What he didn't do, which I have done, is show that the airplane motion on the raw, unstabilized version of Chopper 5 is just as stable, and I say even more so. It most CERTAINLY is not any less stable.

2. No Motion Tracking is required, because the camera is gyroscopically stabilized.

3. Color correction of the airplane image is done ahead of time, against test shots, as I have demonstrated. It's a piece of cake, the planes are silhouettes.

4. Video noise is a non-issue. The composites are done at a high resolution, THEN converted to NTSC. I suspect they were done at 59.94 frames per second, progressive.

5. "Matching interlace scan lines" is a complete red herring, and Wright knows it. The composite is done in progressive format, then the entire thing is converted to NTSC interlaced. There is no possible way the scan lines could not match.

I think my challenge is a good way to test all this. No? Scientific method. Let's test it. While we're at it, let's test Wright's claim that Auto gain Control can make a camera go to black. No video camera I've tested will do this. I say he made that up. Where's your evidence for that whopper, Mr. Wright?

There is a huge fight brewing between Steve Wright and the executives at Avid.

False controversy. There is no fight brewing between Steve Wright and the executives at Avid. The Avid executives have never even raised the topic of Baker with Wright. They, like Wright, simply have better things to do with their time than feed Baker's psychosis by responding to his inane allegations and garbled thinking.

-Steve Wright


Avid makes live compositing systems. Steve Wright is calling them liars. I'm going to push it until someone cries uncle. And it's going to be Mr. Wright (aka Mr. Wrong).

Wright does not call his friends at Avid liars. Wright calls Baker a bumbling psychotic that cannot get the facts straight who continues to try to fool the lay audience with his phony "analysis". Baker simply needs to invent a controversy that does not exist in a pathetic attempt to get more attention for himself. Avid will wisely ignore Baker.

-Steve Wright


I'm glad Wright is admitting that live compositing is possible. Wright is, however, in effect, calling AVID liars. AVID claims live compositing, of exactly the type required to do a 9/11 live shot. Wright says it is impossible. The only way to really settle it is a live demonstration. Wright and I both know how to do it. The only part of the equation I can't duplicate is a gyroscopically stabilized camera mount. We won't need it, because Wright's own methods re-applied demonstrate the stability of the camera shot. (His method also demonstrates that the airplane image in Chopper 5 did not slow down on entry, I guess Steve didn't get the memo on that point. Pssssst, Steve, you're supposed to say it slowed down by 18%).

As we saw on "Hardfire", Baker actually believes that if you find a few people that did not see planes crash into towers, that proves planes didn't. In fact, that proves nothing. The truth is, if you found 1000 people that did NOT see it, but ONE that really did, then that one observer PROVES planes hit the towers. By Baker's logic, if we can find a few people that did not see him born, then he does not exist. We could only wish.

-Steve Wright


I never said that. The no-plane witnesses are interesting, but not proof in and of themselves. It is the fake videos, and the impossible physics, and the ever-changing story on the nose-out that proves no planes.

The final nail in Baker's silly coffin is Wright's conundrum, which goes like this: If there exists even one authentic news video, camcorder video, photograph, or eye witness to the planes hitting the towers, then the planes are proven. However, to prove no planes, then every single news video, camcorder video, photograph, and eye witness must be fake. To fake these hundreds of different sources plus keep the perpetrators of those fakes silent all these years is absurd on the face of it. Just like Ace Baker.

-Steve Wright


That's your final argument? That's a big IF. One could use the same "logic" to prove bigfoot. If just ONE of those bigfoot videos is authentic, or ONE of those photos is authentic, or ONE of the eyewitnesses is correct, then it PROVES bigfoot. There are lots of videos and photos and witnesses for bigfoot.

Only a true disinfo artist could try to claim that SOME fake videos are insufficient proof of no-planes. Even one provably fake video proves no-planes. CNN ghostplane is a freaking fake. It's physically impossible. No planes.

Guess what? There's no bigfoot. The "evidence" is fake, the witnesses are lying or mistaken. And there were no plane crashes on 9/11. Remember when Wright went on Hardfire and claimed that kerosene breaks steel? That's Baker's conundrum. I sent it to you Ron Wieck, and asked you to send it to Mackey. Copy Wright, it will be funny as hell.

[pomeroo]

Now with Ace Baker's replies, which I discovered here:

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/06/exchange-with-steve-wright.html


Again, you are quoting a madman who doesn't know what he's talking about. After Baker lied about Avid, Wright slapped him down by asserting that he has no quarrel with his friends at Avid. Did Baker attempt to contact anyone at Avid? Why do you suppose he didn't?

Baker continues to rant about "impossible physics." People like NASA engineer Ryan Mackey have explained the physics to Baker over and over. Baker cannot process the information because he is ill--what are you not getting here?

There is no "changing story" regarding the ejection of debris from the other side of the tower. Baker pretends that his imaginary video fakers left in the nose of the plane because...because...well, Baker is nuts: why do you think that people who are savvy enough to correct for the speed of the plane as it passes through the building would commit such a glaring blunder? In reality, of course, there is no "nose." Whatever debris is being ejected cannot be identified from the video, but the landing gear would be a plausible guess.

Please understand that Steve Wright prepared much more material than he was able to use in two shows. The three of us discussed the possibility of a return engagement. Upon returning to L.A., Baker told Wright that he was having second thoughts, that he was rethinking his position. Soon after, Baker visited Wright at his home and received a free lesson in video compositing. Baker repaid the favor by going on a rampage, accusing Wright of (surprise!) "lying" and being a "traitor." What do you suppose was behind Baker's antics? Yes, he is crazy, but there's something else.

He didn't want another debate! Once you grasp this simple point, his behavior becomes transparent. Wright, having been insulted by a loony fool, wants nothing to do with no-planers. And that was Baker's idea. As he can never hope to find video compositing experts he can con with his deranged fantasies, he can make sure that none of them will have anything to do with him. Then he can preach to his audience of uncritical dunces.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I'm pretty sure Baker already did the live Avid demonstration. I can't find that he has posted it anywhere though, so I wonder.

[Arus808]

hmmm nothing from steve or ace about the witnesses?
'

thought not

[A W Smith]

Steven, I am really getting aggravated with the assertion that if the nose out doesn't fit certain criteria, you can brush off the witness testimony of those who watched the plane plunge into the tower with their own eyes in person live as it happened, Are you aligning yourself with the mentally ill? or are you yourself mentally ill?

unanswered witness questions Steven. answer them or concede.

from
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw:eyewitnessaccountsofthenycai with my commentary

Quote:

UA Flight 175 Impact


"I just happened to raise my head watching the Statue of Liberty and as I watched I saw this giant aircraft ... coming in slow motion towards me -- eye level, eye contact. And I just froze."

United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the building, smashing through walls, bringing down the ceiling, breaking computers and overturning every desk -- except the one Praimnath had ducked under.

"I'm trembling and I'm crying, 'Lord, don't leave me here to die!' And I realize that I'm covered with debris when I try to get up," he said. "Peeking through the rubble, all I could see was the plane wing wedged at my office door, 20 feet from where I was." Stanley Praimnath Source (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/09/ar911.last.ones.out/index.html)

Steven, did Stanley Prainmath witness a holograph that piled debris on top of him?


"...I sat down with this guy who became my "buddy." Tim's story was that he was on the 86th floor of the second tower, when the plane hit the first tower. They started to evacuate, but after going down a dozen flights they were instructed that it was only the first tower that had been hit and that they could go back. So he was opening the door on the 74th floor at the exact moment that the second plane crashed into the 74th floor. He actually saw the wing before the explosion. He was splashed with jet fuel, but the explosion blew him back into the stairwell, saving his life. With other people helping him, because he was blinded by the jet fuel, he ran down 74 flights of stairs. A medic was lavaging his eyes when the first building fell. Source (http://www.episcopal-dso.org/pages/int2001/0110jim.htm)
Steven, Is it important to you what shadow was cast from this actual wing that Tim saw enter the building at impact? was this a hologram as well? Maybe you will be asking Tim if he witnessed a puffball above or below the left engine?

At some point after our arrival and after we had moved to the west side of West Street, I heard a loud roar of a jet, looked up and saw the second plane impact the south tower. At that point it was clear to me it was a terrorist attack. We stepped over small airplane aviation parts, on Vesey, continued west, continued looking at the building. FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro

Steven, being that chief Daniel Nigro is a fireman, Is he lying to protect his job or just relaying what he has been told to say? Nigro lost 343 of his men that day.
At that time, I started walking towards Engine 3. Engine 3 drove south to the south pedestrian bridge to make a U turn to come back and as I'm walking towards the Engine to find out what Lieutenant Walsh wanted us to do, I heard the sound of a jet plane. I looked up and saw it pretty close and I was like holy ****. What's going on with the with the flight patterns. All of a sudden, the wings turned and it dove right into the building and it was screwed up.

At that time Chief Ganci was behind me and he thought there was another explosion in the north tower and that's when I turned around and said Chief, listen, there is a second plane that hit the other tower. He was like no no no no, we have another explosion. I said no, Chief, I witnessed it. I watched the plane hit the other tower. He is like are you sure. I said Chief, I'm 100 hundred percent positive I watched the second plane hit the other tower. FDNY firefighter Scott Holowach
Steven, Which of these firemen is more credible and has more information, Scott Holowach who was looking up and swears 100 percent that he saw the plane bank and fly directly into the tower, Or chief Ganci who was not looking up and only saw the fireball after the impact? which witness has more data? Or Will you be cherry picking Chief Gancis quote to take out of context in support of a ridiculous no plane theory? Be warned, we will be watching.


Upon that time I heard a plane roar. I had my window down and on my side we saw a plane flying very low come right across us and with a loud, you know, the engines revved up, and I had mentioned to him, I had no idea that it was heading towards that way, and I just said like where is this guy going, you know, he was extremely low, not realizing it was another plane heading towards the World Trade, and we saw it struck the building, we saw a big mushroom of flame, of fire coming up, and it was like disbelief, and he had gotten on the radio and notified the dispatcher another plane had struck the World Trade Center. FDNY firefighter Stephen Zasa

Steven; Firefighter Zasa describes the flight of the plane well before it came within the frame of the chopper five video, Do you propose to ask him if he "blacked out" immediately after the plane entered the building?



"While assisting a female burn victim, I observed PO Rivero look up towards the WTC tower #2. At this time the undersigned heard the sound of jet engines and observed an aircraft with a blue color tail fly directly into the south face of WTCTower #2. Following the impact an enormous explosion occurred causing debris to begin to fall down all around the WTC complex." PAPD PO James Hall Source (http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf) (pg. 5)

Steven, Is PAPD officer James Hall "in on it" and lying as to what he saw that day? Was he part of the cover up that allowed teams to plant "Anti matter mini nuclear" devices on every floor of two 110 story buildings under the fire proofing as Ace Baker alleges? Are you aware that officer Hall lost 37 of his fellow PAPD officers that day?

Boatswain's Mate 1st Class Robin Shipley, at the helm of a Station New York rigid-hull inflatable, took up station at the mouth of the East River between Governors Island and Manhattan's Battery Park. "We understood that a Cessna had accidentally collided into a tower of the WTC," Shipley said. "Shortly after our arrival on-scene we saw a large commercial jetliner approaching from Staten Island at a very low altitude.

"It was hard to believe what we were seeing," she continued, "but it took only fractions of a moment to realize what we were about to see. The plane veered to our right, crossed Governors Island, turned left-crossing over our boat-- and turned into a vertical position as it flew into the tower." The reaction of her three-man crew was, "My God, we are under attack." Source (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200209/ai_n9141469)Steven, I would like you to reconcile what Boatswain's Mate 1st Class Robin Shipley saw that day that would support video fakery,

While scores of boats and small craft were moving toward lower Manhattan, the Coast Guard's VTS center for New York harbor shifted into high gear. Cdr. Daniel Ronan, chief of the center's Waterways Management Division, was told there was "a lot of smoke" coming from Manhattan. He arrived at the VTS site within moments. Using radio transmissions from vessels in the harbor and the center's own surveillance cameras, he quickly evaluated the situation. "We saw the second plane hit the SouthTower," he said. "There was a mood of disbelief and anger. Every person in the room knew that this was not an accident-and that it was time to go into emergency mode. Source (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200209/ai_n9141469)
Steven, assuming worst case that Cdr. Daniel Ronan, chief of the center's Waterways Management Division, witnessed the plane fly into the south tower that day via video surveillance, Is it your contention that these cameras were also live composted?


"We were standing with the chief and we heard somebody yell, 'There's another plane!'" Mosiello recalled. "Then it came into the range of my hearing. And it sounded louder and louder and louder and there it was ... it went right into the building, into (the south tower). Now we have a real problem on our hands. We have two buildings hit by planes. Thousands and thousands of people trapped." –FDNY Chief's assistant Steve Mosiello Source (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/survivors/profile.html)

Steven, FDNY Chief's assistant Steve Mosiello heard the roar of flight 175 get louder and louder as it approached and watched it fly directly into the south tower. When will Ace Baker be releasing his 'book" on live audio composting for the entire area of southern Manhattan? I mean if he can make a red bull can dance in a puppet theater, broadcasting a 120 db roar above the streets of Manhattan should be trivial. correct?

After the first plane hit the World Trade Center, New York City firefighter Craig Gutkes was part of a ladder company in Brooklyn that was called in to Manhattan. When he was still on the Brooklyn side, his company saw the second plane roar over their heads, "It sounded like a freight train," he said. They watched that plane plow into Tower No. 2. Source (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/breaking-news-reporting/works/wsj1.html)

Steven, let me take this opportunity to introduce you to a perfect example of a simile, now you know (i hope) and I know a freight train did not plow into the south tower of the world trade center, Yet that is how Craig Gutkes describes what the noise "sounded like". we know this is a simile because he says it was a second plane that they saw plow into tower two.

We were going on the first alarm to the staging area by the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. En route to the staging area, we were going down Columbia Street, saw the second plane strike the building and we went from being a, quote, good job or a rough job, or we were going to earn our money today. FDNY firefighter Joseph Sullivan

Steven, does Firefighter Joseph Sullivan need to describe a nose out or puffball to validate that he saw a plane fly into the south tower that day? and why?

Right before the tolls on the Brooklyn side heading towards Manhattan at the Battery Tunnel, we were sitting in traffic and we watched United Flight 175 hit tower two, which was the south tower of the WorldTradeCenter.

At that time everybody was just in shock. The firefighters and I were just really trying to get through the traffic when the plane hit, and we were just standing there in like awe of what was happening. FDNY paramedic Kevin Darnowski
Steven; would you be so kind as to develop a ray tracing illustration that shows paramedic Kevin Darnowski that there was no plane that they saw fly directly into the south tower?

"I looked over my shoulder and saw the United Airlines plane coming. It came over the Statute of Liberty. It was just like a movie. It just directly was guided into the second tower."Lakshman Achuthan Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/nyregion/12VIGN.html?ex=1192766400&en=990f09a40f324af3&ei=5070)

Steven; Laksham Achuthan saw what he describes as a UA plane (a passenger plane not a military plane) coming over the statue of liberty. and guided directly into the south tower, he says "it was just like a movie". Do you believe Lakshman was watching a movie that day? if so how?

No sooner did I run downstairs and look up, than I saw the second plane strike the south tower. FDNY lieutanent Murray Murad

Steven; FDNY lieutanent Murad saw the second plane "strike the south tower". Not fly around it. not fly over it. Not disappear from thin air. Please reconcile this with live composting.

Just then out of the corner of my eye I could see this plane. Just remember it was dark in the shadow. It looked low. I thought, what the heck is the guy doing? I watched it, watched him turn and crash right into the south tower. FDNY Battalion Chief Brian O'Flaherty
Steven; FDNY Battalion Chief Brian O'Flaherty says "he watched it turn and crash right into the south tower". Again, Reconcile this with live video composting

After that I ran up to the roof on the third floor with me and Eric Bernsten. We were watching it. We could see it from here. We have an unobstructed view. The other guys came up too. All six of us were on the roof.

Then we saw the second one come up. It looked like it was coming up the East River from here. I guess it was coming from the south. I thought it banked over the East River, which is what it looked like. I thought it made a left over the East River and went right into it going from east to west. But as it turns out, it came from the south. Then we saw it just go right into the building and explode.

I remember talking to Eric. I remember Eric saying something, "Oh, my God, there's another plane." I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building. FDNY firefighter James Murphy

Steven; FDNY firefighter James Murphy describes his view as unobstructed, From his flight description we can surmise he was to the north. From their initial confusion we can gather that depth perception can be a problem for witnesses up until the point of impact. I bring up this point to debunk another conspiracy theory , that of the pentagon "north of Citgo" CT. But to return to the WTC topic, If the plane was flying toward them. as their description clearly illustrates. Where did it go if it did not impact the south tower?

The second plane came in. It was the biggest noise I ever heard in my life.
Q. Did you see the plane?
A. Yeah. We saw it, we heard it, we felt the heat from it, the debris. FDNY EMT Sean Cunniffe

Steven; Please reconcile what FDNY EMT describes as "the biggest noise I ever heard in my life." and what he saw and the heat he felt with "live video composting"

And all of a sudden, it was like it just took off across the bay. I couldn't believe how fast it went. At first, I thought it was just somebody trying to take a look at Manhattan. And it just went right across right into the building. FDNY Battalion Chief Tom Vallebuona Source (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/vallebunoa.html)

steven; Ace Baker claims that the planes speed requires that it must appear within the frame during the zoom. but does not, Please reconcile live video composting with FDNY Battalion Chief Tom Vallebuona's description of the plane flying across the bay. The point Ace obviously misses is that the flight was not flying toward the tower but to the east and banked over the Hudson to the north at the last moment as described by other witnesses above

I was looking up to see if I could do a little more initial size up. That is when I saw the second plane hit the building. I just watched it coming in. FDNY EMS Captain Mark Stone

Steven, FDNY EMS Captain Mark Stone watched it coming in. He was not watching channel 5, He was watching it real time, live. as it happened. Please reconcile this with live composting that would match what he sees.

I stood there staring and then watched eventually the second plane. I saw it, It looked like it was circling coming south then came back north striking the south side of tower No. 2. FDNY paramedic Joel Pierce

Steven, FDNY paramedic Joel Pierce saw it strike the south side of the tower, How could he have been mistaken?

It was at that time when I saw the second plane hit the building. I called a mayday. I told them the second plane hit the south tower of the building. I wasn't sure which floors it was, but I knew it hit the upper floors of the south tower. Debris was falling, body parts were falling. We ducked for cover inside Engine 7, but the rig was getting bombarded with debris from the building, debris from the plane. We saw bodies crash landing right next to the rig. So we couldn't stay there. FDNY firefighter Joseph Casaliggi


Steven, FDNY firefighter Joseph Casaliggi describes a pretty horrific account of the plane hitting that day. Do you suppose he hallucinated the plane crashing into the tower at the same moment the tower allegedly exploded from a “bomb” and showered him with plane debris and body parts?

Here are the plane parts that littered the streets of Manhattan
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

[A W Smith]

I'm pretty sure Baker already did the live Avid demonstration. I can't find that he has posted it anywhere though, so I wonder.


"steven" did you check in your music studio or perhsps with your sheet music in the piano bench?

[KDLarsen]

Just for the sake of it, since it's worth repeating as many times as possible:

This whole thread & its topic are non-starters, due to the wonder of eye-witnesses and physical evidence.

Jesus, No-planers are starting to seem like some Holocaust deniers, with both types ability to focus on one minor anomaly, while clasping their hands over their ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-I CAN'T HEAR YOU" whenever they're presented with the overwhelming evidence of the reality.

[Corsair 115]

Explain the witnesses.He can't, which is why he has steadfastly ignored it so far, along with all the other supporting evidence. And, I wager, why he'll continue to ignore it in the future. Since it cannot be rationally and plausibly explained away, the only option for no plane subscribers is to ignore it completely.

[Dave Rogers]

There's another point to be made, about probabilities, although strictly speaking it's a fallacy. Steven, you've claimed that the fit of the video characteristics to the characteristics of Ace's theory is somehow too improbable to be seriously considered an accident. But which is the more unlikely series of events:

(1) Two live videos display a set of characteristics which, when focused on to the exclusion of consideration of any other characteristics, can in some ways be reconciled with an uproven theory that the videos were composited;

or;

(2) Many thousands of people in New York, including those whose testimonies have been posted or reposted in this thread, were fooled into believing they saw an airplane that wasn't there crash into WTC2 because the US Government told them that's what they'd seen?

Can you cite a well-authenticated prior example of thousands of people agreeing they'd seen something this clear and obvious despite it never having happened?

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Can you cite a well-authenticated prior example of thousands of people agreeing they'd seen something this clear and obvious despite it never having happened?

Dave

October 1938 - War of the Worlds Radio Broadcast.

"Witnesses" claim seeing bright flashes, feeling the earth rumble. smelling poison gas, etc.

WOTW clearly announces it is fiction, several times, and depicts an impossible series of events, yet panic ensues, according the New York Times.

WOTW lacked the power of television images, and lacked the power of multitudes of paid, scripted liars.

[fullflavormenthol]

War of the worlds, while an interesting example of public hysteria; is not what Dave was asking for.

Explain how thousands of on the scene eye witnesses saw planes hit those buildings if they were faked?

Those people who were there weren't being told anything by the media, they were simply looking out their windows or actually on the street.

Did the media live composite a plane into the actual sky? Perhaps they used Avid Ultra Hologram edition 2023 to place a jpeg of a plane into the actual sky, perhaps by using satelites?

Explain the thousands of eye witnesses.

[Caustic Logic]

October 1938 - War of the Worlds Radio Broadcast.

"Witnesses" claim seeing bright flashes, feeling the earth rumble. smelling poison gas, etc.

WOTW clearly announces it is fiction, several times, and depicts an impossible series of events, yet panic ensues, according the New York Times.

WOTW lacked the power of television images, and lacked the power of multitudes of paid, scripted liars.

Wow, good. So 9/11 does have "multitudes of paid, scripted liars." No wonder it worked so good. No way they could have really started a war with Mars or instituted a police state over that old radio show psyop. I'm sure this is what they were trying for but they should have picked a more plausible story. Who faked the crime scene photos they presented at the trial against the Martians? Who paid witnesses to actually pretend, after the show's airing, that this is really what happened? Who planted real UFO debris, faked the destruction of whole cities, and kept people convinced for years after that it was all real? It didn't work too good, did it?

But oh, in 2001, with advancements in technology and woo, they control everything. This was not a radio show, friend. This was not just some media event. Please step back from staring at pixels and realize that you need to address the 3-D world that these pixels only describe.

[Dave Rogers]

October 1938 - War of the Worlds Radio Broadcast.

"Witnesses" claim seeing bright flashes, feeling the earth rumble. smelling poison gas, etc.

During and after the broadcast that they were listening to, rather than retrospectively convinced that they had seen something before the broadcast. Also there was no consensus that everyone had seen the same, single, clearly defined and identified event, just multiple accounts where people had placed an excessive significance on ordinary observations. Give one example where an entire city population has been persuaded, after the fact, that they had witnessed a specific event on whose major details (two airplanes hitting the Twin Towers) they universally agree. War of the Worlds doesn't even come close.

And I see your theory now calls for "multitudes of paid, scripted liars". It's starting to inflate. What have we got so far - United Airlines, American Airlines, the major news stations, the government, a multitude of paid, scripted liars? And we haven't even got into how the explosions were staged and the buildings taken down. Are there a few thousand more conspirators you need to invoke? Or a few hundred thousand?

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Stanley Praimnath claims:

"The bottom part of the wing was stuck in my office door!"

Stanley's office was the southwest corner of floor 81, marked in black.

http://edit.81x.com/Authors/TruthExplosion/stanleypraimath.jpg

[Dave Rogers]

Stanley's office was the southwest corner of floor 81, marked in black.

From where he would have had an excellent view of the approaching aircraft but a very high chance of surviving the impact. Not being an aerospace engineer, he may have misidentified a piece of debris embedded in his door. Have you contacted him to complain about his irresponsibility in evacuating a burning building and saving his own life when there was pointless nit-picking still to be done?

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I stood there staring and then watched eventually the second plane. I saw it, It looked like it was circling coming south then came back north striking the south side of tower No. 2.

- FDNY paramedic Joel Pierce

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/ua175_ground_track.png

Source of image

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/ntsb.html

[Jonnyclueless]

Steve Wright says the Chopper 5 blackout cannot be a signal interruption. You're calling Steve Wright an idiot and a denier.

If Steve Wright is an idiot and a denier, how do you consider credible anything he claimed on Hardfire?

Mr Writght is not an idiot or deniar, you are. He is not the one pushing this nincompoopry that you are. As stated already, there are plenty of threads already on the forum that explain this issue in great detail. Mr Wright does not know everything and he has admitted that.

Now, care to explain the millions of us who were there that day watching the events? What idiotic excuse are you going to use for that one? Holograms? Please go ahead and explain. Or is it that millions of people there all just simply suggestively thought they saw planes hitting the WTC because afterwords they heard about it on the news? Do you actually really believe in this complete stupidity? Do you at the very least understand why people laugh at your claims?

[Arus808]

Page 8 and Steve nor Ace Baker (since steve is his proxy) have addressed the eyewitnesses.

[Dave Rogers]

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/ua175_ground_track.png


Do you think that if you post enough eyewitness statements saying that the planes hit the towers, that will somehow prove they didn't? Or do you think that the fact that an eyewitness saw flight 175 make a turn to the north before hitting WTC2 somehow doesn't stack up with the flight path that shows flight 175 making a turn to the north just before hitting WTC2? It's not difficult to mis-estimate the heading of an airliner that's a long way away, particularly if it's not flying straight and level.

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Joel Pierce said he saw the plane circle, flying south, then coming back north. When the alleged plane was flying south, it was all the way on the other side of New Jersey.

Given the official flight path, it is impossible for Joel Pierce to have seen what he says he saw. Given the official flight path, it is only possible that people saw the plane approaching from the southwest, flying almost due northeast.

Joel Pierce is either

1. Lying
2. Mistaken

Which is it?

[gumboot]

We've all seen digital transmissions break up. They don't go to black, they usually freeze frame. Or freeze part of a frame.

That depends entirely on the system and the nature of the break up. What you're referring to is normally a result of signal interference, not signal loss.

Please stop talking about things you know nothing about.



We are dealing with a FADE to black in Chopper 5, not a cut to black.

Other news helicopters on 9/11 had signal interruptions, and they feature noise.

Obviously they were using analogue systems. Other digital systems also suffered signal black outs so your argument is nonsense.


The cameraman on board Chopper 5 (who happens to be an expert in video compositing) was Kai Simonsen. He says the fade to black happened because he was engaging a 2X lens extender.

He's trying to recall something that happened years ago. He has probably never seen the footage. And he's a journalist, not a compositor. Why do you insist on making things up?


But the focus and zoom don't change when he "engages" it. So that seems wrong. What do you think about that? Simonsen was there, and he's an expert. Why would he say it was a lens extender?

Simonsen is a journalist and may not have been the actual operator, we don't know that. He's trying to recall from memory, and most likely has never seen the footage with the signal black out. Focus is not affected by a zoom unless the back focus is out, and if you're already on the long end of a zoom lens you may not even notice a lens extender being engaged.

[gumboot]

Dave, you know what I am asking. You're avoiding the issue, and you know it.

I understand probability well, thank you. We can specify the conditions in advance, and consider comparable events.

What are the odds, a priori, that during a live news event, which was also captured by documentary filmmakers, that two networks and the documentary film would all accidentally lose picture within 1/4 second of each other?

Further, that this would occur during (arguably) the most important few seconds of the day's events?

Are there any other live news events which had 3 simultaneous blackouts occur, ever, in the history of video?

Either it happened by chance, or it was intentional.



Given that the two broadcasters in question had transmission equipment in one of the towers, and that we know the impacts caused power interruption in both towers, both times, that's not so much a coincidence as direct cause and effect. As for the documentary, what are you referring to?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

To the contrary, Mr. Gumboot.

Kai Simonsen was operating the camera, according to Kai Simonsen.

Kai Simonsen had watched the footage, according to Kai Simonsen.

When Jeff Hill asked him about the nose-out, and the blackout, Kai Simonsen knew exactly what Jeff Hill was talking about.

Kai Simonsen offers compositing services and gyro-stabilized helicopter shots:

http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/KaiRentalAd.jpg

http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/KaiAerialAd.jpg

Above ads dated December 19, 2001.

Source (http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards_16.html)

[Jonnyclueless]

Joel Pierce said he saw the plane circle, flying south, then coming back north. When the alleged plane was flying south, it was all the way on the other side of New Jersey.

Given the official flight path, it is impossible for Joel Pierce to have seen what he says he saw. Given the official flight path, it is only possible that people saw the plane approaching from the southwest, flying almost due northeast.

Joel Pierce is either

1. Lying
2. Mistaken

Which is it?

Oh look. Another 9/11 deniar who has that disease that causes them to conveniently miss all the important posts in a thread.

So, millions of us were there that day in Manhattan and NJ watching the events in person. Millions of us watched a plane slam into the WTC with our own eyes. Millions of people along with all the news media outlets, the victims, the rescue workers, the 911 phone operators, and millions of others are:

1. Lying
2. Mistaken
3. Correct

Which is it?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Kai C. Simonsen
Kai C. Simonsen Film Video Productions was established in the spring of 1992. Its founder, producer/cinematographer, Kai C. Simonsen, was asked to join the news team at New York’s WNBC-TV as a reporter in 1996 but continued on his own providing production services to both broadcast and corporate clients.

http://www.millenniumhd.com/team.html

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Given that the two broadcasters in question had transmission equipment in one of the towers, and that we know the impacts caused power interruption in both towers, both times, that's not so much a coincidence as direct cause and effect. As for the documentary, what are you referring to?

Any broadcast equipment is irrelevant to both Chopper 5 and CNN blackouts.

The signal from FOX to its network affiliates was just fine, as was the signal from CNN to its network. With Chopper 5, we are talking about the signal from the helicopter to the studio. This is a signal relayed via microwave off of a satellite. I don't think it's possible that any helicopters were using any microwave relays on WTC1, because they seemed to work just fine after the twin towers were gone.

With CNN, the blackout occurs right during a dissolve from one camera shot to another. One shot is ABC Chopper 7. This shot was recorded in its entirety, and does not have a blackout. The other shot was a closeup of the towers. Just before black, the shot has analog noise. Then it cuts to black, no fade.

Signal interruption is ruled out on Chopper 5 because it fades to black and maintains coherence during the fade. It's ruled out on CNN because the signal is analog.

The documentary in question is Naudet. There is an edit of about 1 second during the exact time period as the two blackouts, which is the same time that would show the fate of Pinocchio's Nose.

What are the odds that all this occurred by chance?

[fullflavormenthol]

Steven> What about the thousands of people that actually saw the planes?

[pomeroo]

Any broadcast equipment is irrelevant to both Chopper 5 and CNN blackouts.

The signal from FOX to its network affiliates was just fine, as was the signal from CNN to its network. With Chopper 5, we are talking about the signal from the helicopter to the studio. This is a signal relayed via microwave off of a satellite. I don't think it's possible that any helicopters were using any microwave relays on WTC1, because they seemed to work just fine after the twin towers were gone.

With CNN, the blackout occurs right during a dissolve from one camera shot to another. One shot is ABC Chopper 7. This shot was recorded in its entirety, and does not have a blackout. The other shot was a closeup of the towers. Just before black, the shot has analog noise. Then it cuts to black, no fade.

Signal interruption is ruled out on Chopper 5 because it fades to black and maintains coherence during the fade. It's ruled out on CNN because the signal is analog.

The documentary in question is Naudet. There is an edit of about 1 second during the exact time period as the two blackouts, which is the same time that would show the fate of Pinocchio's Nose.

What are the odds that all this occurred by chance?


Referring to the ejection of debris as "Pinocchio's Nose" is a dangerous symptom. Ace Baker is mentally ill. He invents mad terms to disguise the total absence of supporting evidence for his deranged fantasy. Has it occurred to you that you don't have the slightest idea of what you're trying to allege? If you want to pretend that ALL of the videos showing Flight 175 hitting the South Tower were faked by an imaginary cabal of video compositing experts, none of whom ever leak anything, you can reserve a padded cell next to Ace's.

The probability that all 100,000 people who thought they saw a plane really saw nothing at all is approximately 1-in-a-septillion. The probability of the less likely event, that they are all employed by your imaginary conspiracy, is somewhat lower.

[fitzgibbon]

The signal from FOX to its network affiliates was just fine, as was the signal from CNN to its network. With Chopper 5, we are talking about the signal from the helicopter to the studio. This is a signal relayed via microwave off of a satellite.

Would you be so kind as to demonstrate evidence for your signal routing assertion?

[Jonnyclueless]

Steven> What about the thousands of people that actually saw the planes?

It was waaaaaay more than thousands. Think about how many people live in the NY area and the NJ area. And then remember that this was during rush hour when millions more people come into manhattan for work. We're talking 1.5 million people there without the commuters. That brings it to around 3 million people. And that's JUST in manhattan. Add maybe another million in the Northen NJ area just across the river. This was a major event that stopped everything. Everyone stopped working to watch this. But even if you only take into account about half the people there, you're still talking about 2 million people there watching the event in person. heck, take just 1/4 of the people who were there and you're talking a million people watching the event live.

And the people in the area did not just sit at teh TV when the event was happening out the window. We all got out of the buildings and walked to the event to get get better look in person. I can say for sure that the NJ side of the NJ side of the river was completely full of onlookers. They even had to clear people out of the park to use it as a rescue area.

Yet we have to listen to a bunch of nincompoops claiming it was all in our imagination because they think a video glitch is odd to them. They of course cannot prove a conspiracy because all they have is barely conjecture. And no, Stevie will not address your post. It has been 9 pages and he has yet to address the question which gets asked 3 or 4 times per page. The reason he won't address the question is because it proves his nincompoopery theories wrong.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'd also like to add that while I didn't watch this on TV as it happened since I was there, I did see this last 9/11 anniversary a broadcast of the uncut news from one of the channels that day. That broadcast showed the 2nd plane hitting the building on live TV. And there was no interruptions. There was no blackout. There was footage of the plane hitting the building clearly. The interesting part being that the reporter speaking didn't notice the plane hitting the building. Heck had I been watching on that day I may not have noticed since I wouldn't have been looking for it. It was the caller on the phone live with them who screamed as the explosion happened. They rewound the footage of what just happened and just as was shown a few seconds earlier, was the plane hitting the building.

So this is why crackpots claiming video fakery are laughed at and not taken seriously.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I'd also like to add that while I didn't watch this on TV as it happened since I was there, I did see this last 9/11 anniversary a broadcast of the uncut news from one of the channels that day. That broadcast showed the 2nd plane hitting the building on live TV. And there was no interruptions. There was no blackout. There was footage of the plane hitting the building clearly. The interesting part being that the reporter speaking didn't notice the plane hitting the building. Heck had I been watching on that day I may not have noticed since I wouldn't have been looking for it. It was the caller on the phone live with them who screamed as the explosion happened. They rewound the footage of what just happened and just as was shown a few seconds earlier, was the plane hitting the building.

So this is why crackpots claiming video fakery are laughed at and not taken seriously.

Ace Baker claims that none of the live shots actually showed an airplane entering the building.

You're saying there is a new live shot, recently aired for the first time?

What network? Who were the anchors? Who was the caller? Is the video posted anywhere?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Would you be so kind as to demonstrate evidence for your signal routing assertion?

Had the overall network signal from either FOX or CNN broken up, or gone black, then the overlaid graphics would break up and/or go black right along with the camera shot.

In both cases, the overlaid graphics remain just fine.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Referring to the ejection of debris as "Pinocchio's Nose" is a dangerous symptom. Ace Baker is mentally ill. He invents mad terms . . .

Actually, in the treatise, Baker credits StillDiggin for coining the term "Pinocchio's Nose" in reference to the Chopper 5 blooper.

[Arus808]

9 pages and no word from Ace and Steve (who is a proxy of Ace) about the eyewitnesses who saw the planes.

My autn and uncle SAW both planes. care to give an explanation as to why they didn't see what they saw?

Why must I wait for 335+ posts to get an answer?

[Jonnyclueless]

Ace Baker claims that none of the live shots actually showed an airplane entering the building.

You're saying there is a new live shot, recently aired for the first time?

What network? Who were the anchors? Who was the caller? Is the video posted anywhere?

No it was live video from the day of the event. The channel simply replayed the original live footage form that day as it happened. As opposed to playing a snippet, they replayed 2 hours or so of the broadcast as it was happening. Including the first call from the Pentagon which many crackpots try to use as evidence of an inside job. However listening to that call from the live news footage makes it obvious it was not.

I don't know if you can watch it anywhere. I don't go looking for these things because I have common sense and know there was no inside job. I suppose you could use the argument that if it is no on youtube, it doesn't exist.

And yeah, a mentally ill nutjob said there was no footage, so of course it MUST be true. While you handwave all the engineers and scientists in favor of a mentally ill person. And are you surprised that no one takes you seriously?

[Jonnyclueless]

OH and I believe there is a youtube clip somewhere that shows 42 different cameras capturing the 2nd plane impact. I suppose all those people and all the news crews (hello Kai) and the millions of people watching in person are all in on it eh?

[pomeroo]

Had the overall network signal from either FOX or CNN broken up, or gone black, then the overlaid graphics would break up and/or go black right along with the camera shot.

In both cases, the overlaid graphics remain just fine.


Why is Ace Baker unable to find a video compositing expert he can con with his lunacy? Clearly, you know nothing at all about video compositing. Have you ever considered asking a professional in the field for an opinion about the no-plane madness? Why not? Why do you waste your time with a mentally ill person, but refuse to consult with someone who knows the subject?

[Corsair 115]

That broadcast showed the 2nd plane hitting the building on live TV.Wouldn't that be the shot that was shown on, if memory serves, on ABC's Good Morning America? I seem to recall they had a live feed of the second impact.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

ABC were live at 9:03, they showed "Chopper 7", footage from their own helicopter. Chopper 7 does not show the airplane hitting anything. It is compositionally nearly identical to Chopper 5.

Plane enters from the right, crosses in <1.5 seconds, and disappears across the straight vertical edge of WTC1 (WTC2 is completely obscured by WTC1).

Charlie Gibson, watching his monitor, says calmly "There's a second plane" and Don Dahler, who is at the scene says "I did not see a plane go in. That . . .that just exploded".

One question I would have about the rebroadcast -

Was there a "Beep Beep" 17 seconds before the plane came in? And Don Dahler has a big discontinuity in his audio? Or did they change that for this rebroadcast? Just curious.

[Corsair 115]

ABC were live at 9:03, they showed "Chopper 7", footage from their own helicopter. Chopper 7 does not show the airplane hitting anything. It is compositionally nearly identical to Chopper 5. The best you can offer is semantics? Aircraft enters shot, is obscured by building due to camera angle, explosion immediately occurs. What is the rational inference and explanation?

Charlie Gibson, watching his monitor, says calmly "There's a second plane" and Don Dahler, who is at the scene says "I did not see a plane go in. That . . .that just exploded". That (weak) attempt at evidence would have more support if you had demonstrated that Mr. Dahler was in a position to have seen the aircraft's approach and was otherwise undistracted. The rational inference and explanation is that either he was not in the right location to have seen the aircraft's approach angle, or if he was, he was otherwise occupied by an activity which kept his eyes from the sky (since he's a reporter, this does not seem a stretch at all).

I therefore summarize your points above with the following: grasping at straws. And you're still (unsurprisingly) ignoring the totality of the evidence.

By the way, are you ever going to define for us what you think resolution is?

[Arus808]

340+ posts and Ace and Steve (who is a proxy of Ace) has not addressed the eyewitnesses.


Those posting, please stop feeding into the insanity of Ace Baker. Ask them both only one question, and that question should be about the witnesses.

DO not ask anything other than about the witnesses. THIS thread is 9 pages long, with nothing about the witnesses

Remember Witnesses is DESTROY any stupid claim by Steve and Ace.


When is steve and ace going to tell me what my Aunt and uncle saw, seeing as my aunt and uncle both saw both planes that day, crash into each tower. PLEASE, I've been asking this SEVERAL Times, please explain why they didn't see what they saw.

[Dave Rogers]

Given the official flight path, it is impossible for Joel Pierce to have seen what he says he saw. Given the official flight path, it is only possible that people saw the plane approaching from the southwest, flying almost due northeast.

Joel Pierce is either

1. Lying
2. Mistaken

Which is it?

I'll go for 2. Now let's just take a sane and balanced look at the situation, if only for novelty value. Which of these is likely:

1. Joel Pierce saw the plane in the distance, misjudged its direction, watched it turn northwards, misjudged the angle of turn, but was able to see the plane hit WTC2 and explode as it did so.

2. Joel Pierce saw a different plane flying to the south, lost sight of it briefly, picked up flight 175, assumed it was the same plane, reconstructed a course in his mind consistent with his observations, and was still able to see the plane hit WTC2 and explode as it did so.

3. Joel Pierce saw a plane flying to the south, watched it turn northwards, but somehow failed to notice that the plane didn't crash into WTC2 and explode as it did so.

In any series of observations, there are obvious, gross features (like a plane hitting a skyscraper and exploding) and there are fine details (like what was the precise course of the plane when it was a few miles away). It's fairly common for witness testimonies to differ on the details, as recollection is imperfect. However, when vast numbers of witness testmonies agree on the gross features, it is a reasonable conclusion that these features have been correctly recalled by the witnesses. Therefore, however much you care to quibble over some of the minor details of witnesses' recollections, none of this is a counter-argument to the fact that they watched the plane hit the tower.

ABC were live at 9:03, they showed "Chopper 7", footage from their own helicopter. Chopper 7 does not show the airplane hitting anything. It is compositionally nearly identical to Chopper 5.

This is, of course, a purely subjective judgement, made after the fact of a hypothesis having been contructed to encompass the aspects of the two videos that are similar. Again, your argument that Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 both fit Baker's theory is a circular one.

Charlie Gibson, watching his monitor, says calmly "There's a second plane" and Don Dahler, who is at the scene says "I did not see a plane go in. That . . .that just exploded".

Again, which is more likely:

(1) Thousands of people - possibly hundreds of thousands of people - were fooled into thinking they saw something they never actually did see, or:

(2) Don Dahler happened to be looking the wrong way?

Dave

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

We don't know there were "thousands" of eyewitnesses. There are some eyewitnesses to a plane, and there are some who were there who did not see a plane. Among the eyewitnesses there are conflicting statements. No one has been cross examined.

The very recent exchange above is illustrative of how the mind fills in missing details. Johnny Clueless said of his very recent viewing of Chopper 7, "That broadcast showed the 2nd plane hitting the building on live TV. "

Corsair 115 also had a false memory:

I seem to recall they [ABC Chopper 7] had a live feed of the second impact.

In fact, no "hitting" and no "impact" was observed on live television.

Of course if one sees a television image of an airplane crossing the screen, and then sees an explosion, it is reasonable to assume that the plane hit the building. The mind routinely fills in missing details, as many perception studies have proven.

When you combine the awesome suggestive power of live television news, paid scripted liars on scene and on screen, with the ability of the government to censor, edit, and gag firefighter statements, the result is a powerful weapon of mass deception.

The bottom lines:

1. Some videos contain behavior that is strictly impossible.
2. Some videos contain features that are possible individually, but impossibly contradictory when considered together.
3. Some videos contain features that are possible, but astronomically unlikely, on the order of billions to one against.

[fitzgibbon]

Steven,

What about all the witnesses?

[Dave Rogers]

The bottom lines:

1. Some videos contain behavior that is strictly impossible.

Not true; it only appears this way when the video is assumed to contain information on a finer scale than its resolution, either spatially or temporally.

2. Some videos contain features that are possible individually, but impossibly contradictory when considered together.

Asserted but not actually demonstrated, also the reply to (1) applies.

3. Some videos contain features that are possible, but astronomically unlikely, on the order of billions to one against.

Meaningless hyperbole based on (a) a total misunderstanding of a priori / a posteriori probabilities and (b) a complete absence of calculation. In particular, the statement "billions to one against" is, in the circumstances, so utterly unjustified from any relevant calculation as to be considered a blatant attempt at misrepresentation.

The real bottom line:

4. Some people have decided, for reasons best known to themselves, that they want to argue that no planes hit the Twin Towers. They are therefore willing to falsify, misrepresent and if necessary ignore the overwhelming body of evidence that conclusively demonstrates this not to be the case, and instead to magnify irrelevant details out of all proportion to try to demonstrate anomalies that give the impression of impossibility.

5. This point of view is not evidence based; when a line of argument is shown, conclusively, to be fallacious, the no-planer, rather than attempting to formulate a new hypothesis that fits with all the evidence, instead looks to a finer level of detail in the evidence to try to authenticate the original hypothesis.

6. Those advancing these arguments will state a hypothesis for discussion, participate in the discussion only to re-state the hypothesis, and will conclude by a further re-statement, and this is independent of the arguments presented in the debate.

Dave

[Jonnyclueless]

We don't know there were "thousands" of eyewitnesses. There are some eyewitnesses to a plane, and there are some who were there who did not see a plane. Among the eyewitnesses there are conflicting statements. No one has been cross examined.

The very recent exchange above is illustrative of how the mind fills in missing details. Johnny Clueless said of his very recent viewing of Chopper 7,

Corsair 115 also had a false memory:



In fact, no "hitting" and no "impact" was observed on live television.

Of course if one sees a television image of an airplane crossing the screen, and then sees an explosion, it is reasonable to assume that the plane hit the building. The mind routinely fills in missing details, as many perception studies have proven.

When you combine the awesome suggestive power of live television news, paid scripted liars on scene and on screen, with the ability of the government to censor, edit, and gag firefighter statements, the result is a powerful weapon of mass deception.

The bottom lines:

1. Some videos contain behavior that is strictly impossible.
2. Some videos contain features that are possible individually, but impossibly contradictory when considered together.
3. Some videos contain features that are possible, but astronomically unlikely, on the order of billions to one against.

No we do know there were NOT thousands of witnesses. There were MILLIONS of witnesses. Don't try to write off the MILLIONs of witnesses such as myself who were there. MILLIONS. get that through your little head. Not thousands, MILLIONs. MILLIONs. Repeat. MILLIONs.

The impact was caught on at least 42 cameras in addition to the MILLIONs of people who watched it in person. You are a liar and a fraud and a scam artist to say otherwise.

Anyone that says it was simply suggestive is the worlds most incompetent idiot. I don'[t simply mean crackpot, I mean die hard IDIOT. Don't sit there and tell millions of us that we saw nothing and imagined something because you sat at home and see a black spot on a couple of the many many videos that you cannot explain other than by making baseless and idiotic conjecture and speculation.

You do understand why you get laughed at when you make these fraudulent claims right?

[Jonnyclueless]

It should also be noted that Steven is using the typicazl scam artist argument of "Well, I can't explain an event so therefore I will insert anything that I want and not be required to present any evidence of it since I can simply assume it's true until someone else proves otherwise".

THAT is how a scam works. And while the kids on the conspiracyfortwoof forums might be gullible to fall for these scam artists, it doesn't work here. I just find it a shame that these scam artists will use such a tragedy for their own personal gain.

[A W Smith]

We don't know there were "thousands" of eyewitnesses. statistically yes, we do know, there had to be as all eyes were fixed on the WTC because of the first impact and fires. don't blow it off Steven, It reveals your illness. There are some eyewitnesses to a plane, and there are some who were there who did not see a plane. Among the eyewitnesses there are conflicting statements. No one has been cross examined.
The very recent exchange above is illustrative of how the mind fills in missing details. Johnny Clueless said of his very recent viewing of Chopper 7,

Corsair 115 also had a false memory:



In fact, no "hitting" and no "impact" was observed on live television.
You are lying and i can prove it

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



Of course if one sees a television image of an airplane crossing the screen, and then sees an explosion, it is reasonable to assume that the plane hit the building. The mind routinely fills in missing details, as many perception studies have proven.

When you combine the awesome suggestive power of live television news, paid scripted liars on scene and on screen, with the ability of the government to censor, edit, and gag firefighter statements, the result is a powerful weapon of mass deception.

The bottom lines:

1. Some videos contain behavior that is strictly impossible. prove it, argument from incredulity
2. Some videos contain features that are possible individually, but impossibly contradictory when considered together. no they are not, different camera angles will of course be subject to different lighting conditions,
3. Some videos contain features that are possible, but astronomically unlikely, on the order of billions to one against.ridiculous and an argument from incredulity. Again Steven. address the witnesses or concede.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

To All 9/11 Airplane Witnesses:

Ace Baker has been adamantly searching for 9/11 airplane witnesses to participate in interviews. It is my understanding that so far not one has come forward.

I direct you to please contact Ace Baker via the email contact on his blog.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/

Make your voice heard!

[Dave Rogers]

Maybe nobody cares whether Ace Baker thinks there were any planes.

Dave

[A W Smith]

Ace baker has not searched hard enough. Tell him to fly to New York, walk into any one of these firehouses. And tell them no planes flew into the towers, they will direct him (with their right boot) from there.


http://www.nycfire.net/mnfiremap

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/firehousemap.jpg

[Corsair 115]

Ace Baker has been adamantly searching for 9/11 airplane witnesses to participate in interviews. It is my understanding that so far not one has come forward. Can you tell us why the already existing recorded accounts of eyewitnesses are not sufficient? Is the claim that, unless they speak to Mr. Baker personally, the accounts on record are not valid? Are accounts reported in newspapers of the time not to be trusted? If not, why?

Post #184 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4095953&postcount=184) in this very thread recounts numerous eyewitness statements, along with the sources containing those statements. Why are they not sufficient? Why do you not accept them?

[Arus808]

To All 9/11 Airplane Witnesses:

Ace Baker has been adamantly searching for 9/11 airplane witnesses to participate in interviews. It is my understanding that so far not one has come forward.

I direct you to please contact Ace Baker via the email contact on his blog.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/

Make your voice heard!


this hows exactly how ill Ace is. HE can go to NEW YORK and find millions of them.

And I wont subject my aunt and uncle to HIS illness. Why should I? Ace will just call them liars, like he has called everyone.

Why should I subject my aunt and uncle to relive what they saw, to someone who is demonstratedly ill.


If ACE wants his witnesses, then he should be looking for them instead of playing amateur Video Analyzer (since he has shown that he fails at that) and find them.

WTC towers and complex had HOW many people working there? out of the 1,000,000 or so people that work in downtown Manhattan, he has not found one WITNESS (or several) in 7 years?


ACE is ill. And the best thing you can do is SEPARATE your self from his "reality"



When is ACE going to explain what my aunt and uncle saw. HE doesn't need to interview them to give what HE thinks they saw.

[Drudgewire]

To All 9/11 Airplane Witnesses:

Ace Baker has been adamantly searching for 9/11 airplane witnesses to participate in interviews. It is my understanding that so far not one has come forward.

I direct you to please contact Ace Baker via the email contact on his blog.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/

Make your voice heard!


Yes, I'm sure people will be lining up to be called a liar about the most traumatic moment of their lives by a crazy person. :rolleyes:

[ktesibios]

I think that it's become crystal clear that people on this forum are attempting to argue with someone who is either as delusional, ignorant and unteachable as Ace Baker or is trying to see how long he can keep trolling this thread.

I haven't the expertise to diagnose just which it is, but the sheer pointlessness of continuing to argue with someone who has made it unmistakably clear that he will []never[/i] acknowledge the vast body of evidence which proves that no-planers are out of touch with reality is obvious.

Welcome to ignore, Mr. Grossi.

[Jonnyclueless]

To All 9/11 Airplane Witnesses:

Ace Baker has been adamantly searching for 9/11 airplane witnesses to participate in interviews. It is my understanding that so far not one has come forward.

I direct you to please contact Ace Baker via the email contact on his blog.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/

Make your voice heard!

As to be expected from another fraud.

I know many many people including 2 family members who witnessed it. In NYC it's not hard to find people that witnessed it as most people were there in person. Again, we're talking literally in the MILLIONs. And the reason there is no official kind of interview process is because the shear number of people witnessing the event along with the 100s of cameras recording the event leave no question as to what happened. It's uncontested. The only reason to interview people is simply to get their reaction of what they felt.

Anyone who claims these millions of witnesses don't exist and that these 100s of videos are all faked and that the people who made these videos as well as all the news agencies are all in on it is clinically INSANE.

but seriously Steve, is this some kind of a joke? Do you think you're being funny here?

[chillzero]

To All 9/11 Airplane Witnesses:



Take care. You are skating a very fine line here.
Do not cross it into posting on behalf of a banned member. Please take care what you choose to post and how you do so.


That other line... about decency and respect ... that was passed long ago.

[pomeroo]

We don't know there were "thousands" of eyewitnesses. There are some eyewitnesses to a plane, and there are some who were there who did not see a plane. Among the eyewitnesses there are conflicting statements. No one has been cross examined.

The very recent exchange above is illustrative of how the mind fills in missing details. Johnny Clueless said of his very recent viewing of Chopper 7,

Corsair 115 also had a false memory:



In fact, no "hitting" and no "impact" was observed on live television.

Of course if one sees a television image of an airplane crossing the screen, and then sees an explosion, it is reasonable to assume that the plane hit the building. The mind routinely fills in missing details, as many perception studies have proven.

When you combine the awesome suggestive power of live television news, paid scripted liars on scene and on screen, with the ability of the government to censor, edit, and gag firefighter statements, the result is a powerful weapon of mass deception.

The bottom lines:

1. Some videos contain behavior that is strictly impossible.
2. Some videos contain features that are possible individually, but impossibly contradictory when considered together.
3. Some videos contain features that are possible, but astronomically unlikely, on the order of billions to one against.


The real bottom lines:

The deranged Ace Baker has not come close to providing any evidence for video fakery;

You know nothing about video compositing and consequently are incompetent to judge what is and is not possible;

Eyewitnesses to the crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower number in the tens of thousands;

Most devastating for the insane no-plane myth is the total absence of outraged eyewitnesses who insist that there was no plane. With over a hundred thousand pairs of eyes fixed on the WTC complex, absolutely nobody has written a letter-to-the-editor or phoned a radio talk show to complain about a hoax. There are, obviously, many people who have placed their experience on record. Most describe seeing the plane hit the building. Others acknowledge missing the actual crash. NOBODY doubts the existence of the plane.

There remains that tiny matter of the aircraft wreckage found on nearby rooftops and in the streets, to say nothing of the remains of the passengers and crew identified by DNA testing. Ace Baker can wave all of this away because he is mad. But what about you? How far into the darkness are you willing to stumble?

[pomeroo]

To All 9/11 Airplane Witnesses:

Ace Baker has been adamantly searching for 9/11 airplane witnesses to participate in interviews. It is my understanding that so far not one has come forward.

I direct you to please contact Ace Baker via the email contact on his blog.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/

Make your voice heard!


You are lying. Ace Baker has no interest whatever in meeting eyewitnesses to the crash of Flight 175. He was in NYC for the debate with Steve Wright and never attempted to visit Ground Zero.

When Ace was posting on this forum, people would tell him about seeing the crash. He never rose above sputtering that they were lying or deluded.

I have given Ace the benefit of many doubts. He isn't worth it. He is a sick, sick man.

[Drudgewire]

Most devastating for the insane no-plane myth is the total absence of outraged eyewitnesses who insist that there was no plane. With over a hundred thousand pairs of eyes fixed on the WTC complex, absolutely nobody has written a letter-to-the-editor or phoned a radio talk show to complain about a hoax. There are, obviously, many people who have placed their experience on record. Most describe seeing the plane hit the building. Others acknowledge missing the actual crash. NOBODY doubts the existence of the plane.


It's the giant elephant in the no-planer's room. Forget the terrible Fox helicopter footage, forget the mysterious aircraft near the building, forget everything else you know about 9/11 and you're still left with the fact thousands of people saw it with their own eyes... but more importantly, there is nobody who says they saw an explosion without a plane or that they saw a missile hit it (despite the "it hit like a missile" quotes twoofers have been deliberately misrepresenting for years).

Short of holograms, the no-planer argument would end right there for anyone who was sane... well, really even if you toss holograms into the equation it's still only believable to those without a real firm grip on reality. :p

[HyJinX]

For Ace, and other no-planers, there's also the little problem of sound. Planes make noise...especially running full throttle. The witnesses that not only saw the planes...also heard the planes. How could that possibly be explained Steven?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

... but more importantly, there is nobody who says they saw an explosion without a plane

False.

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

Eyewitness: No second plane, it was a bomb. Bomb in another building, not second plane. It was a bomb. Who said it was a second plane?

Disinterested Reporter: That's what we're told. We saw it on television.

Eyewitness: No. I saw everything.

[Drudgewire]

False.

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


Did we liquidate this guy? Why hasn't he been the star of the twoof movement for the last 7 years?

Hmmm, maybe he had a chance to reflect away from the trauma and realized he was mistaken?

Dear God the comments for that video. :boggled:

[dtugg]

Unless he was in a position to actually see the plane, his statement means nothing. They don't even say where he was standing. It could easily be somewhere that his view of the plane was totally obstructed.

I was there, and I had a very clear view of a towers. There were many people standing near me that saw the exact same thing. A plane definitely flew into the South Tower. Zero doubt in my mind about it. How do explain that?

And no, I have no desire to be interviewed by Ace. He is a crazy person and I don't want him to know who I am. He'd probably just call me a liar anyway. If he was really interesting in finding witnesses he could go to New York City and just start asking people on the street. He would come up with a bunch of witnesses really quickly.

[Drudgewire]

Unless he was in a position to actually see the plane, his statement means nothing. They don't even say where he was standing. It could easily be somewhere that his view of the plane was totally obstructed.

It's the easiest explanation in the world. If he's right under the building opposite the side where the plane hit all he'd see would be the resulting explosion.

Again, the fact he didn't become the twoofer poster boy tells me there was nothing to it other than the expected confusion in the middle of a terrorist attack.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Take care. You are skating a very fine line here.
Do not cross it into posting on behalf of a banned member. Please take care what you choose to post and how you do so.


That other line... about decency and respect ... that was passed long ago.

I do not understand the admonition, ChillZero. You edited my quote to simply say "To All 9/11 Airplane Eyewitnesses". Does this mean I am not allowed to address all 9/11 airplane eyewitnesses?

I'm not posting on behalf of a banned member. I have knowledge of the activities of a banned member.

Besides the long list of indecent and disrespectful libelous insults hurled at me, the thread is mostly repeated requests to "address all 9/11 airplane eyewitnesses". I've done that a few different ways, already.

But I think alerting all 9/11 airplane eyewitnesses to an opportunity to publicly record their observations and opinions is a very important way to address all the 9/11 airplane eyewitnesses.

[pomeroo]

Unless he was in a position to actually see the plane, his statement means nothing. They don't even say where he was standing. It could easily be somewhere that his view of the plane was totally obstructed.

I was there, and I had a very clear view of a towers. There were many people standing near me that saw the exact same thing. A plane definitely flew into the South Tower. Zero doubt in my mind about it. How do explain that?

And no, I have no desire to be interviewed by Ace. He is a crazy person and I don't want him to know who I am. He'd probably just call me a liar anyway. If he was really interesting in finding witnesses he could go to New York City and just start asking people on the street. He would come up with a bunch of witnesses really quickly.


Yes, he would certainly accuse you of lying. I suggested to him that he visit Ground Zero and seek out witnesses to the crash. He showed no interest.

Grossi predictably ignored my comments about Ace's motivation for insulting Wright. Baker does not want a second debate. He refuses to seek out other video compositing experts to avoid a repeat of his fiasco on 'Hardfire.' Ace can't con anybody who knows the subject. He may be nuts, but a man's gotta know his limitations.

[dtugg]

Besides the long list of indecent and disrespectful libelous insults hurled at me,

It's only libel if it's not true...

[chillzero]

I do not understand the admonition, ChillZero. You edited my quote to simply say "To All 9/11 Airplane Eyewitnesses". Does this mean I am not allowed to address all 9/11 airplane eyewitnesses?

Don't be disingenuous. I edited out the plea on behalf of a banned member.

People are asking you to respond to the fact that thousands of people witnessed the plane, so Ace Baker has nothing to do with it.
Don't post pleas on his behalf again.

[Arus808]

Im still waiting after 10 pages, for STEVE to address the EYewitnesses who were there in PERSON and saw both planes hit both towers.

My aunt and uncle were there. THEY were going to visit the Towers as part of their vacation. THEY were only a block away when the first plane hit; three blocks away when the second plane hit.

PLEASE, why must I wait for an answer to a simple question:

please tell me why my aunt and uncle did not see what they saw that day.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I find the evident refusal of alleged eyewitnesses to come forward suspicious.

Honest people witnessing an event and reporting their experience have no reason not to come forward. Coming forward means using real names, and answering obvious questions.

People who are afraid to use real names and afraid to answer questions are suspect. It's that simple.

Anyone who claims to have seen an airplane in New York on 9/11, please email me:

stevenlupogrossi [AT] yahoo [DOT] com

I will call the Fire Department in New York to see if any of the alleged witnesses are allowed to speak.

[dtugg]

I will answer any questions about what I saw right here.

I refuse to give my name and contact info to some random person on the Internet who is insane though. And yes, if you believe there were no planes, you are insane. I have no idea what you will do with the information.

[Corsair 115]

I find the evident refusal of alleged eyewitnesses to come forward suspicious. I find your refusal to answer my legitimate questions in post #354 suspicious. I'll repeat them:


Can you tell us why the already existing recorded accounts of eyewitnesses are not sufficient? Is the claim that, unless they speak to Mr. Baker personally, the accounts on record are not valid? Are accounts reported in newspapers of the time not to be trusted? If not, why?

Post #184 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4095953&postcount=184) in this very thread recounts numerous eyewitness statements, along with the sources containing those statements. Why are they not sufficient? Why do you not accept them?


Honest people witnessing an event and reporting their experience have no reason not to come forward. Honest people questioning an event have no reason not to present their reasons, in detail, as to why publically available accounts of eyewitnesses published in various sources are not acceptable as credible.

So why are the many publically available accounts (which you yourself can verify with a trip to the library) being dismissed by you? What is your basis for this dismissal? You must have one since so far you have steadfastly refused to acknowledge the accounts mentioned in post #184 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4095953&postcount=184) of this thread.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Dtugg has spoken, and refuses to acquire credibility by using his/her real name. Anonymous random posters on the internet do not count.

If there are any 9/11 airplane witnesses, please come forward.

[TexasJack]

Dtugg has spoken, and refuses to acquire credibility by using his/her real name. Anonymous random posters on the internet do not count.

If there are any 9/11 airplane witnesses, please come forward.

Dtugg hasn't lost any credibility, but rather has made a sane and sensible decision. Your inability to see that doesn't surprise me at all.

[HyJinX]

Steven...I highly doubt that anybody on this forum will subscribe to your request. Perhaps trying other forums will be more fruitful. Also, can you answer the questions posed to you in Corsairs post #375 and my post #363.

Thank you in advance for your response.

[Corsair 115]

Dtugg has spoken, and refuses to acquire credibility by using his/her real name. Anonymous random posters on the internet do not count. Mr. Grossi has spoken, and refuses to acquire credibility by answering entirely legitimate questions as to why publically available and sourced eyewitness accounts should be dismissed as acceptable evidence.

If there are any 9/11 airplane witnesses, please come forward.They have. Their accounts have been posted in this thread and forum. But if these are not acceptable to you, then numerous accounts have been published in newspapers and other sources which can be read for yourself at the library. A partial list of such accounts was given in post #184 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4095953&postcount=184).

Mr. Grossi, please come forward with your reasons as to why these on the record, publically available eyewitness accounts are not acceptable pieces of evidence.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I find your refusal to answer my legitimate questions in post #354 suspicious. I'll repeat them:


Can you tell us why the already existing recorded accounts of eyewitnesses are not sufficient? Is the claim that, unless they speak to Mr. Baker personally, the accounts on record are not valid? Are accounts reported in newspapers of the time not to be trusted? If not, why?


I've answered most of this, but here goes again.

Newspaper accounts are not AUTOMATICALLY to be trusted, no, anymore than TV news. Interviewees can lie, or be mistaken. Interviewers can lie, or be mistaken. Editors can have an agenda.

The records of the firefighter interviews were sealed for a good long period of time, then finally released. This is extraordinarily suspicious, sorry. Plenty of means, motive and opportunity to edit.

The accounts typically do not include the most obvious questions, like: Where were you standing? Which way were you looking? Who were you with? What did you hear? What happened next? Etc.

[Caustic Logic]

My goodness, this SLG is taking the CIT approach to witnesses and applying it to new York! This is pretty insane. They're not valid unless verified by the biggest doubter on the planet.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Post #184 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4095953&postcount=184) in this very thread recounts numerous eyewitness statements, along with the sources containing those statements. Why are they not sufficient? Why do you not accept them?



Because eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. People lie, people can be mistaken. People fabricate memories, all people do. It is how the mind works.

Given the awesome suggestive power of television images, plus the power of key planted shills, plus the power of gag orders, plus the power of sealing transcripts, plus the power of peer pressure, threats, etc. and I don't find it unreasonable at all to think there are 100 or so people who say they saw a plane.

I agree that had there been a real plane, there would have been at LEAST 10,000 eyewitnesses, maybe 100,000. The fact that there are so few, and such a high percentage of them are employed by either the government or the news media, is just not convincing.

[Corsair 115]

Newspaper accounts are not AUTOMATICALLY to be trusted, no, anymore than TV news. Interviewees can lie, or be mistaken. Interviewers can lie, or be mistaken. Editors can have an agenda. And how is any of that alleviated by witnesses talking to you or Mr. Baker in person? A person cannot lie or be mistaken when talking to you in person? A person speaking to you directly may still have an agenda? For that matter, with you or Mr. Baker as the interviewer, what prevents either of you from having an agenda?

Your reason for refusing to accept published accounts over people speaking directly to you or Mr. Baker is incredibly weak.

My goodness, this SLG is taking the CIT approach to witnesses and applying it to new York! This is pretty insane. They're not valid unless verified by the biggest doubter on the planet.That's it in a nutshell, yes.

[HyJinX]

I guess I need to ask this yet again...

For Ace, and other no-planers, there's also the little problem of sound. Planes make noise...especially running full throttle. The witnesses that not only saw the planes...also heard the planes. How could that possibly be explained Steven?

[dtugg]

The accounts typically do not include the most obvious questions, like: Where were you standing? Which way were you looking? Who were you with? What did you hear? What happened next? Etc.

I'll answer these questions. I was standing in Liberty State Park, in New Jersey on the other side of the Hudson. There was a very good view of the World Trade Center. Myself and everybody around me was looking at the North Tower trying to figure out what had happened. I was with some family members and we on our way to Manhattan to go site seeing when we saw that the World Trade Center was on fire. So we stopped at the park to safely watch from across the river. A few minutes later I heard the roar of a jet engine and looked to see where it was coming from. I saw the plane for about five or ten seconds until it hit the tower. It hit the tower and exploded into a huge fireball. Everybody around me saw the same thing. It was the most surreal thing that I have ever seen and is something that I will never forget. It really happened, period. Everybody that denies planes flew into the WTC is insane.

It makes me very upset for anyone to try to imply that what I, and many, many other people saw didn't really happen. I am just a regular person, I am not being paid in anyway to say this, I have no reason whatsoever to make it up.

Like I said before I am not giving out my personal info to you just so you might find my story more credible, you would likely dismiss me as a liar the same even if I did that anyway. You and Ace Baker (that is if you are not the same person) are obviously insane, and insane people do insane things. For all I know you will end up stalking me.

[pomeroo]

I find the evident refusal of alleged eyewitnesses to come forward suspicious.

Honest people witnessing an event and reporting their experience have no reason not to come forward. Coming forward means using real names, and answering obvious questions.

People who are afraid to use real names and afraid to answer questions are suspect. It's that simple.

Anyone who claims to have seen an airplane in New York on 9/11, please email me:

stevenlupogrossi [AT] yahoo [DOT] com

I will call the Fire Department in New York to see if any of the alleged witnesses are allowed to speak.



Why should an eyewitness to an event that left considerable physical evidence in its wake seek out an agenda-driven crank? There are perhaps three dozen psychos in the entire world who don't think that planes hit the Towers. I know three people who saw the crash and none of them would waste time with you. After you've accused them of belonging to a gigantic imaginary conspiracy, a mathematically-impossible conspiracy, what's your next trick?

Your refusal to accommodate your fantasies to reality hints at your mental state. Why should sane people assume that you're not dangerous? Who knows what Ace will attempt before his final descent into oblivion? You think that rational people are "suspect" for not wanting to get involved with an irrational crackpot who promotes evil, absurd nonsense?

Let's try the approach suggested by Arlene, the wife of one of my closest friends, who, along with seven of her co-workers, saw the crash from her office windows. She tells me to ask the no-plane lunatics to explain to her exactly what she observed. As she puts it, "Were we all screaming that another plane just crashed because we actually saw nothing? Please let me know if we all secretly work for George Bush, and not for the accounting firm we think employs us."

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I guess I need to ask this yet again...

For Ace, and other no-planers, there's also the little problem of sound. Planes make noise...especially running full throttle. The witnesses that not only saw the planes...also heard the planes. How could that possibly be explained Steven?

I think sound is a great topic. Yes, those jet engines at (beyond) full throttle and low altitude would be incredibly loud. Very possibly damaging hearing. This sound is unmistakeable, and has a lot of midrange and upper midrange content, perfect for being picked up by telephone or news microphone.

Strange then we hear no airplane sound on ABC Don Dahler.

We hear no airplane sound on CNN Winston Mitchell.

We hear no sound at all on Even Fairbanks, and his story has changed twice. Nowadays, he says he accidentally recorded with no sound. But then, his footage in the "In Memoriam" DVD has a perfect sound of an airplane coming in and crashing.

So that's suspicious, as is CNN Ghostplane. The DVD version has a guy really close to the mic saying, "Oh my god, a plane just crashed in the building". But, when it first aired on CNN on 9/11 at around midnight, it had sound, but no guy saying that.

This stuff is in Baker's treatise, comment requested, thanks for brining it up.

[pomeroo]

Because eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. People lie, people can be mistaken. People fabricate memories, all people do. It is how the mind works.


So, your claim is that people who insist they saw a plane hit a building really saw nothing? Hmmmm.



Given the awesome suggestive power of television images, plus the power of key planted shills, plus the power of gag orders, plus the power of sealing transcripts, plus the power of peer pressure, threats, etc. and I don't find it unreasonable at all to think there are 100 or so people who say they saw a plane.


Uh, the people who saw the plane from the streets below, from their office windows, from their cars as they crossed bridges into lower Manhattan, from rooftops in Brooklyn Heights, aren't relying on televised images. Most of us are capable of grasping that concept.




I agree that had there been a real plane, there would have been at LEAST 10,000 eyewitnesses, maybe 100,000. The fact that there are so few, and such a high percentage of them are employed by either the government or the news media, is just not convincing.


There were tens of thousands of witnesses. The vast majority were not interviewed on TV or in print media. Your falsehood about a "high percentage" being employed by the gubmint is, well, another reason why you evil loons are called conspiracy liars.

[Jonnyclueless]

So now Steve's fraud is going to the point of accusing all the wintesses of LYING and not coming forward? Talk about an insiane crackpot. There are no witnesses who aren't coming forward, and there are no witnesses lying about seeing the plane hit the building. Especially when there were MILLIONs of witnesses. I being there witnesses how many people were there and it was in the millions. Steve is outright LYING.

No 10,1000 witnesses, millions. And if you cut that in half and say only half saw the plane, and then cut that in half and say that only half of those out of the 3-4 million people who were there in that area at the time, you are still left with 250,000 witnesses who saw the plane hit. And let's be honest, it was a lot more than that. Then you have at leaast 100 videos that captures the planes hitting the buildings. Steve, are you going to present evidence for each one of those videos as to how they were fake and how the people who shot them were involved?

No, of course you aren't. Because you are a fraud trying to use a tragic event to prey on people for your own gain. So far you have not provided a single piece of evidence to prove video fakery, and you most certainly have not provided a single shred of evidence to prove any kind of inside job.

And the most tell-tale sign that proves Steve is a fraud and a con artist is his completely baseless claim that a high percentage of the millions of people there work for the government. He claims that witnesses has not come forward (A complete lie) and then accuses the witnesses of being government workers in on it (another complete lie).

Pleas stop lying Steve. Saying there are few eye witnesses is a 100% bold faced lie and you know it. We don't appreciate the accusations you have made against us witnesses.

[HyJinX]

I think sound is a great topic. Yes, those jet engines at (beyond) full throttle and low altitude would be incredibly loud. Very possibly damaging hearing. This sound is unmistakeable, and has a lot of midrange and upper midrange content, perfect for being picked up by telephone or news microphone.

Strange then we hear no airplane sound on ABC Don Dahler.

We hear no airplane sound on CNN Winston Mitchell.

We hear no sound at all on Even Fairbanks, and his story has changed twice. Nowadays, he says he accidentally recorded with no sound. But then, his footage in the "In Memoriam" DVD has a perfect sound of an airplane coming in and crashing.

So that's suspicious, as is CNN Ghostplane. The DVD version has a guy really close to the mic saying, "Oh my god, a plane just crashed in the building". But, when it first aired on CNN on 9/11 at around midnight, it had sound, but no guy saying that.

This stuff is in Baker's treatise, comment requested, thanks for brining it up.

You're welcome.

But I think you may have misunderstood me. I was talking about eyewitnesses that heard the plane approach...not video. Can you please explain DTUGGs recollection of his account...where he pointed out that the sound of the plane is what caused him to look in the planes direction...prior to impact. Is DTUGG lying, mistaken, wrong or crazy? Please explain your answer.

[fullflavormenthol]

People...this is fruitless.

And Steven is being and has been completely disingenuous. Supposedly this thread was started to seek an honest review of Ace Baker's paper (this was a lie). Supposedly Steve didn't believe any of this, but was just wondering what the answers were (this was a lie).

Honestly it is my opinion that Steve is acting as a full and willing proxy of Ace, who is potentially reading this thread; and we are aware that Steve already has posted responses from Ace.

Steve has completely adopted the beliefs and views of Ace Baker, and lied about his intentions upon starting this thread. He refused to acknowledge the witnesses, and then has revealed that no witness testimony will suffice to him. This is a game of Calvinball with Steve acting as a proxy of Ace, and no matter who you bring forward they will be accused of being a liar. Apply Occam's razor to the arguments, and call it a day.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

No FullFlav, you're wrong. I'd be happy to stick to discussing the treatise, that was indeed my intention. It does not mention the eyewitnesses.

If any eyewitnesses are willing to come forward, with names, great. Otherwise let's stick to what's in the book.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Apply Occam's razor to the arguments, and call it a day.

The simplest explanation for why the videos look fake, is that they are fake.

The simplest explanation for why they exhibit features and problems common to video composites, is that they are video composites.

[fullflavormenthol]

The simplest explanation for why the videos look fake, is that they are fake.

The simplest explanation for why they exhibit features and problems common to video composites, is that they are video composites.
Except the videos don't "look fake".

And you have never been able to show these "principles" of live compositing beyond the rantings of Ace Baker. So that is a no go.

But...lets play.

You believe that all those videos are fake? So you believe that hundreds of people within the media, including different outlets, got together and planned out and "rehearsed" this; without error. And out of this conspiracy of hundreds of people, if not more, they were able to create 42 videos that have fooled even the best special effects artists. Also they were able to plant thousands of paid actors to pretend to see planes, and fool the remaining population of the New York metro that was on the scene that they had seen planes? Including people that had viewed this from roof tops and windows away from the occurance?

Or...planes actually hit those buildings, and what is on those videos is in reality what is on those videos.

[Jonnyclueless]

You mean let's handwave all the obvious evidence that proves you wrong and stick to a couple of the videos which have some technical issues that because you can't explain you feel you can then just insert your baseless conclusions and dismiss all other videos.

This is what a con artist does. Your goal Steve is to remove as much evidence as possible. Therefore unless someone gives you names, you won't accept their testimony. yet instead you will happily assume that the millions of people who watched first hand were lying, government works, or just mis-saw. Then while you won't accept video evidence unless it was broadcast live on air, you'll happily insert that there was video fakery and an inside job despite not having any evidence what so ever.

Fraud. This is 100% nincompoopery fraud.

[fullflavormenthol]

Oh and the thousands, and thousands of eye witnesses. Which as much as you would like to dismiss them were there and saw the event take place. That though, not mentioned in the nutty nut book o' Baker, are completely 100% relevant to the subject.

But it doesn't matter. You lied in the OP about your purpose here, and so you were never honest about your reasons here.

[HyJinX]

No FullFlav, you're wrong. I'd be happy to stick to discussing the treatise, that was indeed my intention. It does not mention the eyewitnesses.

If any eyewitnesses are willing to come forward, with names, great. Otherwise let's stick to what's in the book.

What the deal with names, Steven? That's a ridiculous request...you do realize this, right? Have you seen what truthers do when they have the full names of some individuals? Val McClatchy comes to mind. Your request for full names and identity holds zero consequence on the truth. Why do you need this info and why can you not answer my question regarding the sound of the planes to the eyewitnesses in southern Manhattan?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

FullFLav, you lied about studying Chopper 5. Post your images if you studied it.

[Jonnyclueless]

And Steve lied about that hand held video having a blackout in it. not to mention that it wasn't broadcast live. So basically out of the 100s of videos, he picked 2 that had a blackout, a 3rd he lied and claimed had a blackout, and then dismisses all the ones that don't have some anomaly.

THAT is fraud and lying. Lying with the intent to mislead people.

And with 10 pages, Steve has yet to prove video fakery. His argument is that he assumes it must be. Wow, color us all impressed....

Oh yes and he even goes so far as to directly accuse the camera man of faking the video based on the fact that the guy has video production experience ( a camera operator, who would have thought?? Coincidence???)

Oh yes, and Steve LIED when he claimed a high percentage of the millions of people who watched first hand were government workers. He simply MADE IT UP. Just as he LIED when he claimed no witnesses have come forward. Shall we keep counting Steven's lies?

You do know that when you simply make s*** up it's a lie right?

[fullflavormenthol]

FullFLav, you lied about studying Chopper 5. Post your images if you studied it.
No, I gave my reasons for not posting. Simply because you will not accept them as anything. It is not worth my time to sit here and convert screen shots, and then have you respond with your standard..."well according to Ace."

Regardless, you could do your own analysis with any program...including many open source applications. This isn't your purpose here, is it? You are here to act as a proxy for Ace.

Also I already told you that I am in agreement with Steve Wright, and his analysis is available through the hardfire program.

[rwguinn]

Take care. You are skating a very fine line here.
Do not cross it into posting on behalf of a banned member. Please take care what you choose to post and how you do so.


That other line... about decency and respect ... that was passed long ago.
Finally noticed, Chill?

[HyJinX]

Whatever Ace...erm..I mean Steve...you're on ignore for being a disengenous liar. Bye Liar.

[pomeroo]

The simplest explanation for why the videos look fake, is that they are fake.


But they don't look fake to people who make videos for a living. You are taking the word of a mentally ill person whose pretensions were exposed by an expert in video compositing. You understand nothing of the subject, but your compulsive need to cling to your fantasy blinds you to reality.



The simplest explanation for why they exhibit features and problems common to video composites, is that they are video composites.


Nothing about the videos suggests that they are composities. Steve Wright explained to Ace Baker, briefly in their 'Hardfire' debate and in depth at his home, why they cannot be composites. Baker understands that his mad delusion has been destroyed. That is the reason he insulted Wright. He wants to make sure that the dialogue between them can't continue. Ace is mad, but cunning.

[pomeroo]

I am embarrassed to admit it, but Ace has suckered me again. I don't know this "Steven Lupo Grossi" character from a hole in the ground, but it sure feels as though we are arguing with Ace himself. And we need to stop.

It's waddling and quacking like a duck. Let's proceed on the assumption that it's really a duck.

[Grizzly Bear]

What the deal with names, Steven? That's a ridiculous request...you do realize this, right? Have you seen what truthers do when they have the full names of some individuals? Val McClatchy comes to mind. Your request for full names and identity holds zero consequence on the truth. Why do you need this info and why can you not answer my question regarding the sound of the planes to the eyewitnesses in southern Manhattan?
It's a way to shift goal posts and keep the video fakery material "relevant."
I gave up on trying to convince this guy the very moment he neglected the population of lower Manhattan that was abroad in the morning rush hour that day...

[HyJinX]

I'm in total agreement with Pomeroo and Grizzly on this. In taking Gravy's previous thread into consideration, I think we let this one go. This is not a person we can converse with on the same level. Steven is obviously in a different world when it comes to reality and rationalism. I, for one, find his disposition sad, but eye-opening. I think it's best if we all place Steven on ignore and just let it go. Waste no more time on this riduculousness and move forward to greener pastures. I wish Steven the best and I hope he gets the medication needed to help move his life in a better direction.

[dtugg]

I'm in total agreement with Pomeroo and Grizzly on this. In taking Gravy's previous thread into consideration, I think we let this one go. This is not a person we can converse with on the same level. Steven is obviously in a different world when it comes to reality and rationalism. I, for one, find his disposition sad, but eye-opening. I think it's best if we all place Steven on ignore and just let it go. Waste no more time on this riduculousness and move forward to greener pastures. I wish Steven the best and I hope he gets the medication needed to help move his life in a better direction.

Agreed, Ace...oops, Steven is now the sole member on my ignore list.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Out of all the reporters and camera operators, what are the odds that the one who shoots Chopper 5 also happens to be a video compositor?

Are there any other reporters who are also camera ops and compositors?

And why would the posters on this thread deny Kai Simonsen is a video compositor, who in 2001 was advertizing his production services, including his Avid system, his helicopter shots, his green screen compositing setup, etc?

[fullflavormenthol]

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7955/trackpoint01lk6.th.jpg (http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trackpoint01lk6.jpg)http://img100.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

This is the first of a series of three screen captures I took.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1563/trackpoint02ua9.th.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trackpoint02ua9.jpg)http://img90.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Do you notice the motion of the buildings as the camera moves?

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/9936/trackpoint03hk3.th.jpg (http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trackpoint03hk3.jpg)http://img75.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Now this is too large of a motion to live composite on. "Well Ace says..." doesn't change that fact in the slightest.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/1225/planetrack01eo1.th.jpg (http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=planetrack01eo1.jpg)http://img75.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

The plane has a motion consistent with that of the camera, at least from what little I could analyze. Yet has its own motion. This is very consistant with an actual plane on video.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5292/graphictrackqr7.th.jpg (http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=graphictrackqr7.jpg)http://img100.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Now this is a motion track of the graphic. This is an illustration of what a live composite would track like given the movement of the camera.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/4375/graphictrack02lj6.th.jpg (http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=graphictrack02lj6.jpg)http://img75.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

You see how the camera/copter has moved while the live composite is in the same place? It has not motion in relation to the other objects. No amount of reharsal in the world would overcome this.

Now...lets here how Ace said this, and Ace said that. And how it is really fake and all that. Hand wave it off for all I care.

[fullflavormenthol]

Out of all the reporters and camera operators, what are the odds that the one who shoots Chopper 5 also happens to be a video compositor?

Are there any other reporters who are also camera ops and compositors?

And why would the posters on this thread deny Kai Simonsen is a video compositor, who in 2001 was advertizing his production services, including his Avid system, his helicopter shots, his green screen compositing setup, etc?
Steve. I am a producer, director, camera operator, sound guy, and...yes...a digital effects artist. In media one has to be a jack of all trades or one finds themselves replaced.

So it is not uncommon for a camera operator to be a digital effects artist, especially if they are using camera operation as a way to move forward in the highly competitive field of media.

[fullflavormenthol]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4778/signalinterruptionns6.th.jpg (http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=signalinterruptionns6.jpg)http://img227.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

This isn't a fade to black. Do you notice the distortion here?

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/9016/signalinterrupt02ot4.th.jpg (http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=signalinterrupt02ot4.jpg)http://img75.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Do you notice how the scene is dark as this bright object suddenly comes into view through a low res camera taking video of a very gray surface scape?

I would say it was the iris here, but it could be a signal interruption between the copter and the station.

[Jonnyclueless]

Out of all the reporters and camera operators, what are the odds that the one who shoots Chopper 5 also happens to be a video compositor?

Are there any other reporters who are also camera ops and compositors?

And why would the posters on this thread deny Kai Simonsen is a video compositor, who in 2001 was advertizing his production services, including his Avid system, his helicopter shots, his green screen compositing setup, etc?

Pretty much 99%. No one is denying what Kai does for a living. YOU on the other hand are denying that you are simply making conjecture and pretending that it's uncommon for people in video to do multiple things, when it is in fact standard. You see when you simply make things up Ace, they are lies.

And aside from your fraudulent argument, now show that the people who made the some 100 other videos are also composite artists.

[Arus808]

so since Steve and ACE are calling my aunt and uncle liars (because they will not come forward to speak to insane people with delusions), we've outed him for the fraud that he is.

Ace cannot explain nor will HE ever explain the witneses and dissmies their statements outright becaue they DO NOT FIT with his INSANE belief of video fakery.

Out of the THOUSANDS of cameras there that day, he chooses a video, taken from miles away, in a MOVING helicopter.

I've posted the video of the ARTIST who had his camera set up LOOKING straight at WTC 2 that showed the plane. ACE has never taken this video into consideration, nor HAS HE EVER taken ANY other video into consideration

ACE is a fraud, a liar and the worst kind of COWARD that has ever graced the 911 liar movement.


Steve will now go on ignore. ANYONE who buys into the LIES of ACe baker should not be trusted.

[fullflavormenthol]

Not to mention that not only is it a poor low res video, but it is a poor low res video on VHS. So any argument about scan lines are moot, because the transmission of it to a television/VHS would create the scan lines even if there were not there to begin with. The whole argument is ready made for denial and the moving of goal posts.

I would just like to know how someone can take video, composite, and match the object being composited to a low res video without being able to prepare for the lighting conditions; and fool professional special effects artists into believing it.

Again, the simplistic (and real) solution is that the video is really of a plane hitting that tower. The totality of evidence leads to that conclusion.

[A W Smith]

Steven

It is not the witnesses responsibility to come to you. nor is it their burden to convince the tiny minority of the mentally ill that they did indeed see the plane impacts that day, If you want credibility, it is your burden to show proof and contact these witnesses yourself. I have provided a witness list, and the means to contact every single firehouse in Manhattan, If you bothered to follow the links in post 184 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4095953&postcount=184), you would see that even the last witness provided contact info on his very own web page (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4095953&postcount=184), for that he was scorned by truthers, branded a liar and even harassed, (http://www.notnicemusic.com/911idiots.html) Is this what you want to do? harass witnesses that disprove your mentally sick fantasy? I should regret posting such contact info because of potential harassment. But you know something Steven? I know for a fact you will not follow through simply because you are a coward and a troll.

[Dave Rogers]

Ace baker has not searched hard enough. Tell him to fly to New York, walk into any one of these firehouses. And tell them no planes flew into the towers, they will direct him (with their right boot) from there.

I think I once advised Ace not to do that. There's a forum rule against advocating self-harm, and accusing a bunch of New York firemen, to their faces, of lying to cover up a conspiracy that killed hundreds of their fellow firefighters constitutes self-harm by any definition I can think of.

Dave

[chillzero]

Steven Lupo Grossi
Please do not try to harangue members into giving up personal information.

We have had members here face threats of violence, and death threats and also legal action and harassment to themselves, their families and even employers. I always strongly advise people to hold on to as much of their anonymity as possible. It's a thing to be respected, not derided.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7955/trackpoint01lk6.th.jpg (http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trackpoint01lk6.jpg)http://img100.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

This is the first of a series of three screen captures I took.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1563/trackpoint02ua9.th.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trackpoint02ua9.jpg)http://img90.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Do you notice the motion of the buildings as the camera moves?

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/9936/trackpoint03hk3.th.jpg (http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trackpoint03hk3.jpg)http://img75.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Now this is too large of a motion to live composite on. "Well Ace says..." doesn't change that fact in the slightest.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/1225/planetrack01eo1.th.jpg (http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=planetrack01eo1.jpg)http://img75.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

The plane has a motion consistent with that of the camera, at least from what little I could analyze. Yet has its own motion. This is very consistant with an actual plane on video.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5292/graphictrackqr7.th.jpg (http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=graphictrackqr7.jpg)http://img100.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Now this is a motion track of the graphic. This is an illustration of what a live composite would track like given the movement of the camera.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/4375/graphictrack02lj6.th.jpg (http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=graphictrack02lj6.jpg)http://img75.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

You see how the camera/copter has moved while the live composite is in the same place? It has not motion in relation to the other objects. No amount of reharsal in the world would overcome this.

Now...lets here how Ace said this, and Ace said that. And how it is really fake and all that. Hand wave it off for all I care.

I believe that you are using source footage that is frame blended, but your gifs are a so fuzzy it's a little hard to tell. There is an interlaced version available.

Do you have a link to the source footage?

And will you provide a link to your .aep file?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Steven Lupo Grossi
Please do not try to harangue members into giving up personal information.

We have had members here face threats of violence, and death threats and also legal action and harassment to themselves, their families and even employers. I always strongly advise people to hold on to as much of their anonymity as possible. It's a thing to be respected, not derided.

My request for real names is to "9/11 airplane witnesses", not JREF members necessarily. It is other members who repeatedly demanded that I "address the 9/11 airplane eyewitnesses". Properly assessing credibility absolutely requires real names. Period. This goes for anything.

Other members have posted the real names of alleged eyewitnesses, not me.
Another member posted a Google Map indicating the location of firehouses in New York, and suggested I go there.

Another member suggested that FIrefighers should assault me with their boot.

Another member suggested that visiting a firehouse would be harmful to me.

This receives no mention and no moderation from you?

Then we consider the non-stop accusations that I harbor mental illness, a loathsome disease.

And not a warning to these members?

Your failure to warn the other members speaks volumes.It is a clear de-facto endorsement of libel per se.

[fullflavormenthol]

I believe that you are using source footage that is frame blended, but your gifs are a so fuzzy it's a little hard to tell. There is an interlaced version available.

Do you have a link to the source footage?

And will you provide a link to your .aep file?
And the goal posts are moved. You should be careful not to pull your back out while doing that Steve. And these were TIFF converted in jpegs, you would have known this btw if you actually clicked any of the photos. Also you would have seen that they aren't fuzzy when you go to the hosting site. So that just means that you are not interested in the results. Ummm? Whatever. Like I predicted you simply hand waved them, which was why I didn't post in the first place.

Oh, and it isn't libel there Steve. You are a liar, and that is obvious from the way you came in and the way you handle everything.

And no, you don't get anything more from me. I am not going to hand over the After Effect file or anything else to someone who isn't interested in a serious discussion. Oh, and even if the quality was reduced from being a lower low rez format. The motion tracking data that I used would still have come out the same way.

But...isn't it funny you would demand the After Effects file as a means to imply that I faked even my analysis. That seems very....Ace Baker of you?

[dtugg]

Then we consider the non-stop accusations that I harbor mental illness, a loathsome disease.

And not a warning to these members?

Your failure to warn the other members speaks volumes.It is a clear de-facto endorsement of libel per se.

Against my better judgment I momentarily took you off ignore. I just have to say that the truth is a 100% defense against libel. One has to be insane to be a no-planer. Since you are apparently a no-planer (and probably Ace Baker himself), you are insane, therefore there is no libel at all.

[fullflavormenthol]

It is obvious to me that you will eventually claim that if it wasn't an analysis of the original footage from WNYW Fox 5 that it won't be good enough. So why go through this pointless dance.

To the OP.

Ace Baker's "treatise" is bunk, pure and simple. That has been shown, and that is what it is.

Ace Baker can't account for the thousands and thousands of eye witnesses, and this destroys his fantasy.

The fact is that the motion track of the live composite graphic in the screen capture I provided compared to that of the plane is fairly obvious to someone without mental defect.

I am done wasting my talent on you Steve. Just admit that nothing will suffice to convince you, say you are either a sock or just a believer in Ace and leave. Because everyone here including me has seen through this sorry exercise. Go back to whatever no-planer forum or group you frequent and claim whatever you want to claim. People here are done with it.

Because honestly you have presented nothing beyond.."well according to Ace the nut job...". Ace needs to be in a mental hospital...okay. He is wrong. There is nothing else to say beyond that. He is a hack, and knows nothing about video compositing beyond a few internet tutorials. He is a joke, and honestly is a failure at life. He isn't worth any time on this forum.

There...it has been said. Seriously. Do you believe that Ace is correct while everyone else is wrong? Are actualy Ace Baker?

You have your review. 11 pages of review to be exact. So take it and leave, because really there is nothing else to say other than you are completely and totally ignorant about anything dealing with video compositing beyond the most superficial aspect of it.

At that is the word....

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Full FLav,

You didn't do any analysis. You didn't track the airplane. It appears you attempted to stabilize the footage, but we cannot tell how successful you were.

What you need to is attempt to track the motion of the airplane with just 2 keyframes. You need to do this on both stabilized and unstabilized footage. You need to show that you can track the airplane motion on the stabilized footage, but find it impossible to track the motion of the airplane on the raw footage.

Of course you would want to use broadcast quality footage if possible, but it appears unavailable at any price. I think you should use the highest quality available.

[chillzero]

My request for real names is to "9/11 airplane witnesses", not JREF members necessarily. It is other members who repeatedly demanded that I "address the 9/11 airplane eyewitnesses". Properly assessing credibility absolutely requires real names. Period. This goes for anything.
I don't care whose personal information you want. I strongly advise people against giving it out. It's not just forum members who have been harassed by members of the 'truth' movement.

Other members have posted the real names of alleged eyewitnesses, not me.
So use that info. Stop complaining that a member here who has given you their exact direct experience that day won't give out his/her details. If you want a non-anonymous member who held items from the plane (at the Pentagon, not the Towers) we have testimony in this section from Hal Bidlack.

Another member posted a Google Map indicating the location of firehouses in New York, and suggested I go there.

Another member suggested that FIrefighers should assault me with their boot.

Another member suggested that visiting a firehouse would be harmful to me.

I think you should consider why they would say so. I believe that if you walk into a firehouse and tell them that you don't believe a plane hit the Towers that day, when they lost so many colleagues, you are going to make them angry.

This receives no mention and no moderation from you?
Did you report it?
I try not to moderate in threads I'm participating in as a member unless absolutely necessary.

Then we consider the non-stop accusations that I harbor mental illness, a loathsome disease.

And not a warning to these members?

Your failure to warn the other members speaks volumes.It is a clear de-facto endorsement of libel per se.
Again, did you report anything?
If you want to discuss moderation, you're doing it in the wrong forum section.

My comments to you - as a member - are a direct result of your attempts to belittle and ignore the traumatic experiences of many people that day, and the continued pimping of CIT nonsense.

[fullflavormenthol]

I did track the motion of the plane, and that would be obvious to some who actually knew anything about this subject Steven. Like I wrote, you would simply move the goal posts...which you did. And the whole gesture about wanting the After Effects file? Do you actually own a copy of after effects? Honestly I can't trust you not to use the information in the file to get my real name and informaiton which would be contained within. (Given that I actually own a legitimate copy of the Adobe Creative Suite 3 Master Collection, and that my computer is named with my actual name.)

Oh and in after effects, stabilization and motion tracking work in similiar ways and are approached from the same menu. The simple fact that the images show a marker that says "track point 1" and "track point 2" makes it obvious to anyone that actually looked at the images...which means clicking on them.

So...yes I did an analysis, but if you believe a no talent insane person like Ace Baker than you would already be predisposed to ignorance of video compositing.

I think my analysis stands on its own. That and the fact that Ace is completely is a hack.

EDIT: By the way. You can count each on of the squares in the motion tracking, and see that I tract 3 frames on the plane. Opps! I guess you didn't notice that when you never bothered to look at the files. :rolleyes:

Here it is again....try clicking it this time.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/1225/planetrack01eo1.th.jpg (http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=planetrack01eo1.jpg)

[funk de fino]

Full FLav,

You didn't do any analysis. You didn't track the airplane. It appears you attempted to stabilize the footage, but we cannot tell how successful you were.

What you need to is attempt to track the motion of the airplane with just 2 keyframes. You need to do this on both stabilized and unstabilized footage. You need to show that you can track the airplane motion on the stabilized footage, but find it impossible to track the motion of the airplane on the raw footage.

Of course you would want to use broadcast quality footage if possible, but it appears unavailable at any price. I think you should use the highest quality available.


Oh, come on. It does not get anymore obvious than that.

[fullflavormenthol]

Well given the fact that I was called a liar, and basically accused of faking my analysis; it appears very obvious where this will lead to.

I guess I am just like those thousands and thousands of eye witnesses, reporters, camera operators, etc...a liar who is part of the CT?

I hate doing this, but....I have to ignore things at some point. There isn't enough beer in the world to make me continue this pointless game of calvinball.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I did track the motion of the plane, and that would be obvious to some who actually knew anything about this subject Steven. Like I wrote, you would simply move the goal posts...which you did. And the whole gesture about wanting the After Effects file? Do you actually own a copy of after effects? Honestly I can't trust you not to use the information in the file to get my real name and informaiton which would be contained within. (Given that I actually own a legitimate copy of the Adobe Creative Suite 3 Master Collection, and that my computer is named with my actual name.)

Oh and in after effects, stabilization and motion tracking work in similiar ways and are approached from the same menu. The simple fact that the images show a marker that says "track point 1" and "track point 2" makes it obvious to anyone that actually looked at the images...which means clicking on them.

So...yes I did an analysis, but if you believe a no talent insane person like Ace Baker than you would already be predisposed to ignorance of video compositing.

I think my analysis stands on its own. That and the fact that Ace is completely is a hack.

EDIT: By the way. You can count each on of the squares in the motion tracking, and see that I tract 3 frames on the plane. Opps! I guess you didn't notice that when you never bothered to look at the files. :rolleyes:

Here it is again....try clicking it this time.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/1225/planetrack01eo1.th.jpg (http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=planetrack01eo1.jpg)

Tracking the motion of the airplane with the motion tracker means nothing other than there is an airplane there.

What you need to do is attempt to track the motion of the airplane with keyframes. Make an outline of the airplane and place it outside the picture to the right. Animate the motion of the outline by setting one keyframe at the first frame, and one more key frame at the last frame.

If the motion of the airplane is smooth, you should be able to keep the airplane inside the outline with only two keyframes.

If you can do this on the unstabilized raw footage, it proves the shot was steady enough to composite on.

[fullflavormenthol]

I gave my answer there steve, and it is obvious to anyone who matters that you are completely wrong.

Tracking the motion of the airplane with the motion tracker means nothing other than there is an airplane there.

Thank you. Finally you admit there was a plane in the footage. How does it feel to abandon that insanity? Actually I motion tracked it relative to other objects so it is a bit more complex than you want to admit.

BUT...I have a really interesting link I want you to look at.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36557

It is titled "Seeking Review of 9/11 Video Compositing Treatise" Funny thing though...the writing style is familiar.

Do you have an opinion on this?

EDIT: Sorry about the issue with the aep* file. Ace clearly has a copy of Adobe After Effects as seen here.

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

[dtugg]

I final thought from on this from me:

The idea that some evil geniuses could fake planes crashing into the two largest, most recognizable structures in one of the largest metro areas in the world, in broad daylight, on a clear morning is ridiculous beyond belief. I find it absolutely amazing that there are people deluded enough to believe this garbage.

Ace/Steve, there is a very good reason that we all believe that you are crazy. Even most twoofers think that you are crazy (or that you are disinfo agents planted to make their movement look even more retarded than it already is). Planes hit the WTC, this is a fact. Get over it and get the help that you so desperately need.

[fullflavormenthol]

BTW...you can't recreate a live composting environment through Adobe After Effects, becase it behaves very different than Avid or Tricaster. Again...a digital effects artist would know this.

Also there is this thread featuring a writer by the handle of truthseeker1234 who actually covers many of the same points. I figured this would be of help to you and other casual members viewing this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88695

[fullflavormenthol]

second thought: Nope

[Dave Rogers]

Another member suggested that visiting a firehouse would be harmful to me.

If you're talking about me, I said it would have been harmful to Ace Baker. You're Steven Lupo Grossi, remember.

Then we consider the non-stop accusations that I harbor mental illness, a loathsome disease.

I find that attitude extremely offensive. Mental illness is cause for sympathy, not loathing. If your opinions are rooted in delusional mania then I suspect there's little point trying to reason you out of them, and I feel sorry for you because of the hold they have on your life. If not, then I find it hard to feel any sympathy for you whatsoever. Suggesting that you're mentally ill wouldn't be far off a compliment.

Dave

[pomeroo]

My request for real names is to "9/11 airplane witnesses", not JREF members necessarily. It is other members who repeatedly demanded that I "address the 9/11 airplane eyewitnesses". Properly assessing credibility absolutely requires real names. Period. This goes for anything.

Other members have posted the real names of alleged eyewitnesses, not me.
Another member posted a Google Map indicating the location of firehouses in New York, and suggested I go there.

Another member suggested that FIrefighers should assault me with their boot.

Another member suggested that visiting a firehouse would be harmful to me.

This receives no mention and no moderation from you?

Then we consider the non-stop accusations that I harbor mental illness, a loathsome disease.

And not a warning to these members?

Your failure to warn the other members speaks volumes.It is a clear de-facto endorsement of libel per se.


Gee, "Steven," Ace has referred to his mental illness as a "loathsome" disease. Not many people would choose to characterize the problem in precisely that fashion. It's almost as though you and he are the same person.

You need to watch for little slips like that one. Being the smartest human who ever lived isn't always sufficient. You have to act smart sometimes.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

The law specifies "loathsome disease" in defining libel per se.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4778/signalinterruptionns6.th.jpg (http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=signalinterruptionns6.jpg)http://img227.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

This isn't a fade to black. Do you notice the distortion here?

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/9016/signalinterrupt02ot4.th.jpg (http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=signalinterrupt02ot4.jpg)http://img75.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Do you notice how the scene is dark as this bright object suddenly comes into view through a low res camera taking video of a very gray surface scape?

I would say it was the iris here, but it could be a signal interruption between the copter and the station.

A "low res" camera? It was a Flir Ultra Media II.

Of course it's a fade to black. Look at your frame, it's halfway black. Had you used the interlaced version, you'd notice that one set of scan lines goes dark before the other one.

The "distortion" is video noise on your chosen copy, noise that does not exist on the interlaced version. The noise is from the VHS copy, and has nothing at all to do with the source footage.

[Dave Rogers]

The law specifies "loathsome disease" in defining libel per se.

A quick Google suggests that "loathsome disease", in this case, refers to leprosy or venereal disease.

Dave

[fitzgibbon]

A "low res" camera? It was a Flir Ultra Media II.

Steven,

What are the resolution specs on that model? You know, is it HiDef, Standard Def, 16x9, 4x3, etc.?


Of course it's a fade to black. Look at your frame, it's halfway black.

And what's the total frame duration from beginning of fade-out to end of fade-in?

And for clarification, you were saying this was done on an Avid?

TIA
Fitz

[pomeroo]

The law specifies "loathsome disease" in defining libel per se.


Ace, someone who denies that planes hit the Twin Towers won't win any libel suits against people who call him crazy.

[Jonnyclueless]

My request for real names is to "9/11 airplane witnesses", not JREF members necessarily. It is other members who repeatedly demanded that I "address the 9/11 airplane eyewitnesses". Properly assessing credibility absolutely requires real names. Period. This goes for anything.

Other members have posted the real names of alleged eyewitnesses, not me.
Another member posted a Google Map indicating the location of firehouses in New York, and suggested I go there.

Another member suggested that FIrefighers should assault me with their boot.

Another member suggested that visiting a firehouse would be harmful to me.

This receives no mention and no moderation from you?

Then we consider the non-stop accusations that I harbor mental illness, a loathsome disease.

And not a warning to these members?

Your failure to warn the other members speaks volumes.It is a clear de-facto endorsement of libel per se.

your argument is like going to a sold out football gaim with 50,000 fans and saying that unless you get their names, you cannot confirm that any of them saw the game.

you are a fraud and a con artists Ace. And this is why you are not going to be taken seriously. The ONLY reason you bring up this argument is NOT because you want to talk to people like us who were there first hand, but because you want to be able to dismiss this highest form of evidence that destroys your crackpot theory. You know very well that no one wants to talk to crackpots and you use this to pretend that the MILLIONs of people who were there in person must not exist. This is pure NINCOMPOOPERY.

And no one here has threatened you. It is very reasonable for someone to note that if you were to fo to a NYC firehouse and confront these people who sat there and watched their fellow men DIE, while you accuse them of being responsible for it, that you will be physically harmed.

Do you still not understand how accusing the very people who were there to save lives and who lost their friends and families of being part of a plot to kill their own friends, families, and innocent people might spark some rage among them?

Pointing this out is not a threat of violence. Requiring people to reveal their identities is a violation.

[dtugg]

The law specifies "loathsome disease" in defining libel per se.


libel per se n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis), or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel+per+se


I know you don't think that you are crazy, Ace, but the truth of the matter is that you are so there is no libel per se even if you can describe mental illness as a loathsome disease.

[A W Smith]

Steven

You have been puling our chain all along, havent you?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2882578&postcount=1

[Drudgewire]

Steven

You have been puling our chain all along, havent you?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2882578&postcount=1


Wow. Good one Steve. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/hfive.gif

[A W Smith]

Edited for civility

[chillzero]

OK, everyone, stop with the personal stuff, or the thread may be closed, amid further mod actions.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Steven,

What are the resolution specs on that model? You know, is it HiDef, Standard Def, 16x9, 4x3, etc.?



And what's the total frame duration from beginning of fade-out to end of fade-in?

And for clarification, you were saying this was done on an Avid?

TIA
Fitz

The live composites would need to be done on a system capable of real-time luma-key compositing, such as Avid. Chopper 5 camera op Kai Simonsen had an Avid system in 2001, so it seems reasonable.

There are other systems with the capability.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

FLIR UM II comes standard NTSC, but is upgradable to HD.

Also, note this about the gyro-stabilizer:

Extreme Stability The UltraMedia family leads the world in high-performance gyro-stabilization, and UltraMedia HD has the best stabilization yet – better than 5 microradians. This means that you will deliver jitter-free imagery regardless of aircraft motion caused by maneuvering or turbulence. UMHD’s advanced, microprocessor-controlled gyro-stabilization system makes solid imagery possible from greater ranges than ever before.


source (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:z1IQKy8G6eYJ:cvs.flir.com/docs/CVS/Market_Spaces/Aviation/Documents/Aviation_UltraMediaHD_Datasheet(1).pdf+flir+ultra+ media+II+specs&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari)

[Jonnyclueless]

The live composites would need to be done on a system capable of real-time luma-key compositing, such as Avid. Chopper 5 camera op Kai Simonsen had an Avid system in 2001, so it seems reasonable.

There are other systems with the capability.

No, it's NOT reasonable. There are reasonable explanations for the 2 blackouts. But there is no explanation on your end for the other 100+ videos and the millions of first hand witnesses.

So to find two blackout glitches out of the hundreds of videos and then to make up absurd and idiotic explanations of Kai creating video fakery live is fraud.

[HyJinX]

Steven

You have been puling our chain all along, havent you?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2882578&postcount=1

WTF?

[fullflavormenthol]

So let me get this all straight. Analysing 2 frames out of footage that runs at 29.97 frames per second would tell me if it was truly stable? Well that is a stupid opinion to have, it is completely wrong; and it is insane. Even the most shaky footage and be stable for 2 frames.

Let me see here. stAce you are big on the whole coincidence card, and yet the odds of the VHS tape happening to encounter distortion at the same time that the "fade to black" happens... Anyways, the iris is closing on the last screen capture, and anyone who uses a camera would know this.

Jitter-free, doesn't mean completely still. It simply means that it won't bounce widly everywhere.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36557

It is titled "Seeking Review of 9/11 Video Compositing Treatise" WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THIS THREAD? It is funny you are avoiding this.

[fitzgibbon]

FLIR UM II comes standard NTSC, but is upgradable to HD.

Also, note this about the gyro-stabilizer:

source (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:z1IQKy8G6eYJ:cvs.flir.com/docs/CVS/Market_Spaces/Aviation/Documents/Aviation_UltraMediaHD_Datasheet(1).pdf+flir+ultra+ media+II+specs&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari)

Yeah but you realise that isn't the question you were asked now was it?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

So let me get this all straight. Analysing 2 frames out of footage that runs at 29.97 frames per second would tell me if it was truly stable? Well that is a stupid opinion to have, it is completely wrong; and it is insane. Even the most shaky footage and be stable for 2 frames.
.

No, sir. I said two keyframes, not two frames. You hit the little "Clock" icon to activate keyframing, then click the little diamond icon to set additional keyframes.

Make an outline of the airplane image.

By using only two keyframes, and placing the keyframes on the first frame, and the last frame of the airplane motion you wish to analyze, the software will animate the motion of the overlaid outline. Unless you set some kind of curve, AE will default to linear and give you a steady motion between keyframes.

If the motion of the airplane is smooth, then the airplane image will remain inside the outline.

What you need to show is that keyframing the stabilized version works, but keyframing the raw shot is impossible. If keyframing the raw shot works, then the raw shot was stable enough to composite on.

[fullflavormenthol]

No, sir. I said two keyframes, not two frames. You hit the little "Clock" icon to activate keyframing, then click the little diamond icon to set additional keyframes.

Make an outline of the airplane image.

By using only two keyframes, and placing the keyframes on the first frame, and the last frame of the airplane motion you wish to analyze, the software will animate the motion of the overlaid outline. Unless you set some kind of curve, AE will default to linear and give you a steady motion between keyframes.

If the motion of the airplane is smooth, then the airplane image will remain inside the outline.

What you need to show is that keyframing the stabilized version works, but keyframing the raw shot is impossible. If keyframing the raw shot works, then the raw shot was stable enough to composite on.
Oh, you're going to teach me?

Look, you don't know anything about video compositing; or an analysis of video. This was the sorry excuse that was presented to Steven Wright by that no talent hack Ace, you know the one who is completely insane (basically a loser with bad 80's hair).

Look, who ever you are. It has been real, but in 12 pages you haven't been able to defend your treatise, you haven't presented any evidence for fakery. All you have done is avoided questions, moved goalposts; and transformed from JAQ'ing off to becoming full fledged Ace Baker on us.

You're on ignore...

[HyJinX]

http://www.bible.ca/marriage/psychiatry-couch.gif.

[Corsair 115]

A "low res" camera? It was a Flir Ultra Media II.That would have more meaning if you had included a link to the specifications for the camera.

But in any case, it's only part of the picture. What's the resolution of the media the image is output to? What's the resolution of the media that was actually used for the analysis? Do you understand yet that resolution of the image can be different for all of these things? Have you figured out yet why resolution matters when doing a detailed analysis?

Have you figured out yet why experts in the field of visual effects (such as all the folks who work at ILM—surely you've heard of ILM, yes?) have not spoken up to denounce what they would surely have noticed straight away were video fakes? (They are extremely skilled and knowledgeable about visual effects, after all.) Have you figured out yet why no one who was near the WTC that day has come forward to say they didn't see or hear a jet that day considering all the numerous videos and still images show aircraft? Have you figured out yet how and when all these alleged video fakes (at least forty, plus still photos) were made?

Have you figured out yet when all the false eyewitnesses were contracted to be part of this grand conspiracy, and when all their backstories were created? Have you figured out yet how the all the news media, both broadcast and print, both American and those of other nations (some of whom had their own reporters there that day) were fed all these false videos and photographs and eyewitness accounts, and why they didn't notice they were being given false stories? Have you figured out yet how the physical remains of aircraft were transported to downtown Manhattan and planted without anyone noticing?

Have you figured out yet where the air traffic control radar data came from which showed aircraft heading to the city? Have you figured out yet why the airlines involved would admit to losing expensive pieces of hardware and skilled personnel that day when they actually didn't? Have you figured out yet what actually did happen to the airline crews and passengers of the missing aircraft?

Have you even considered one of the above questions? They are all entirely legitimate follow-ups if your claims of video fakery are correct. Have you considered at all the big picture your claims present? Can you offer any sort of rational, plausible responses to the foregoing series of questions? You'll have to, if you are to support with any seriousness your assertions of video fakery.

Will you even ever answer the simple question of what you think resolution means?

[fullflavormenthol]

Well he did link to specifications...for the most current model. That seems to be one of the most common mistakes in Ace Baker's work. He uses the most current technology to justify what can be done, not understanding that things have actually advanced quite a bit in the meantime.

I mean you can't compare Avid (2001) to Avid (2008). Things have changed a lot in that software, and in the Avid Symphony. (BTW, a real digital effects artist would never use a Luma Key on a live shot; because it is too random. That is why Chroma is the standard.)

Same thing with cameras. You use the specs on a Flir UltraMedia HD camera in place of a Flir camera on a helicopter in 2001. So why give the specs for the most modern Flir camera, and somehow claim that it can be used in place?

Low res is a fair statement. If they were using a 36:1 zoom lens with a 2x extension than the quality of the footage from that far out would have been severally reduced. There are also matters of what kind of transmission they used between the helicopter and the station.

[pomeroo]

No, sir. I said two keyframes, not two frames. You hit the little "Clock" icon to activate keyframing, then click the little diamond icon to set additional keyframes.

Make an outline of the airplane image.

By using only two keyframes, and placing the keyframes on the first frame, and the last frame of the airplane motion you wish to analyze, the software will animate the motion of the overlaid outline. Unless you set some kind of curve, AE will default to linear and give you a steady motion between keyframes.

If the motion of the airplane is smooth, then the airplane image will remain inside the outline.

What you need to show is that keyframing the stabilized version works, but keyframing the raw shot is impossible. If keyframing the raw shot works, then the raw shot was stable enough to composite on.


Ace, we understand that your "debate" with video compositing expert Steve Wright wasn't exactly a triumph for you. Your decision to insult Wright, thereby driving him off the field, showed good survival instincts. Now, how about finding us another compositing expert? Can you produce one who swallows your nonsensical snake oil? No? You say that they're ALL in on it? Wow! It makes one wonder why you bother.

[Dave Rogers]

There's two minor points that strike me about Ace's scenario, that may be a bit of a sticking point. One of them has been mentioned here, but the other has only just occurred to me.

His claim, in so far as I can reconstruct a coherent claim from the rather backward way he arranges his arguments, is that:

Originally the composited video was not originally supposed to show any debris emerging from the face of WTC2 opposite the impact face.
In order to make it easier to remove the composited image at the right moment the airliner footage was slowed down to quarter-speed after it passed the expected location of the right hand side of the tower.
Someone didn't press the stop button quickly enough, so the nose of the airliner was seen emerging from the left hand side of the tower on the Chopper 5 footage.
The signal on both Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 footage was quickly interrupted so as to hide the absence of any emerging debris from Chopper 7.
All remaining videotapes showing the far side of WTC2 from the impact were hurriedly retouched to show debris emerging from the point where the nose of the airplane on the composited video was seen.
Point number one is one of causality. The Chopper 7 video was interrupted before the debris emerged, and therefore before the operator error (in Ace's theory) that resulted in the apparent emergence of the nose of the airliner. How did the operator who interrupted the Chopper 7 feed know that the compositing of the Chopper 5 feed was about to be interrupted too late? Which feed was actually showing live as Flight 175 hit the tower? If it was only Chopper 5, there was no need to show Chopper 7, just hold it back and release it a few days later suitably doctored. If it was only Chopper 7, there was even less need to show Chopper 5; just cut off a few frames earlier, leaving no need to alter all the other videos. And if it was both on different stations, then Ace's theory requires a violation of causality. There is no possible scenario for the coincidence between the cutoffs of Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 feed interruptions that makes a shred of sense, other than just that is was a coincidence.

Point number two is that the slowed videotape hypothesis makes no sense. I've already touched on this, in that slowing down the airliner after it passes the tower edge is a stupid way to try to make it easier to stop the compositing at the right moment. The big question, though, is: What was supposed to happen, and how does it make sense in this scenario? Was the video feed supposed to switch abruptly back to a genuine live feed? Unlikely, because the sky would abruptly chance colour. Was the airplane video supposed to freeze-frame when the airplane had passed behind the tower? If so, why not simply do so in advance, using a video which simply replicated all the frames after the airliner had passed the tower edge with a single frame in which the airliner was hidden? It would have been trivially simple to construct such a video - or, nearly as simply, to construct one where the airliner is clipped off the images along a line down the centre of the tower - leaving no possibility of the error Ace claims occurred. Yet, instead of making up a suitable video ahead of time, Ace wants us to believe that the conspirators let all their plans stand or fall on the ability of one technician to press the right button within a second or so of the right moment, and that the conspiracy is revealed because he forgot to do it.

It's a classic piece of conspiracist logic. The planners had to be at the same time devilishly clever enough to understand that hundreds of thousands of people would honestly believe they'd seen a real plane hit WTC2 because they were told on TV that they must have seen it, technically able enough to perform a feat of real-time video compositing far beyond anything that had ever even been attempted before, and yet stupid enough to leave the split-second timing required to Joe Schmoe down in the video suite, who forgot to press the big red button at exactly the right moment.

Funnily enough, the parts where the conspirators are required to be fiendishly clever are always the parts the conspiracist can simply handwave away. And yet it turns out that the parts where the conspiracist needs a detailed explanation of the sequence of events are always the parts where the conspirators are required to be unable to formulate a coherent plan. Almost as if the fault were not in the hypothetical conspirators, but in the people formulating the hypotheses.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

It looks like the starter of this thread won't be back to carry on the discussion.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4126058#post4126058

I say "the starter of this thread" because it appears it may well not have been the same Steven Lupo Grossi who, last May, posted the comment, in reply to Truthseeker1234 (aka Ace Baker):

You cannot be serious in saying that planes did not hit the world trade center. They were captured on live television, and witnessed by thousands of horrified people in New York City.

I wonder who we've been talking to for the last three weeks. Well, actually, I think we all know, but it would be nice to be certain.

Dave

[fullflavormenthol]

We have been talking with Ace Baker. I suspect he was playing the game of good cop, bad cop for quite awhile. I say this based on the statement made by Ace on his blog, which I came across by googling the name Steven Lupo Grossi.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/10/dave-strawman-rogers.html

Since Steve Wright left the debate in shame at having been caught out in a series of provable lies, Dave Rogers on JREF is about the only one left willing to attempt debate on the 9/11 video composites. Having been banned from JREF more than a year ago, I was using a sock-puppet "Steven Lupo Grossi" to post. JREF have now banned Steven.

Disappointing, but it became very obvious as the thread progressed and this individual who was "just asking questions", and seemingly "undecided" started using the same arguments against me that Ace used against Steven Wright word for word.

That and I noticed that Ace had posted the same thread topic on the David Icke forums.

[Drudgewire]

I was using a sock-puppet "Steven Lupo Grossi" to post.


Well, that fooled... ummmm... nobody. :rolleyes:

[16.5]

Gee, a No Planer lying, again, what a shock.

[twinstead]

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

[calebprime]

Guess we should have figured it out during the Sympathectomy thread--where he (SLG) just happened to have a friend--Ace Baker--who'd had the procedure.

There, IMO (and not in many others' opinion) he had something like a point, if not a case.

The point was that medical interventions may have unwanted side-effects that are downplayed by the doctor, if the doctor ain't so ethical.

[A W Smith]

Took me awhile to catch on
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4116573&postcount=307

[chillzero]

Well, in future, perhaps some of you smartypants could remember not to discuss it in threads, but to report your evidence to the mods?

:)

[A W Smith]

Well, in future, perhaps some of you smartypants could remember not to discuss it in threads, but to report your evidence to the mods?

:)


We have no ability to IP trace and compare with year old posts to see if they are on the same subnet. :( which wouldn't have mattered anyway since he was a sock from the get-go not technically a shared account.


Does this mean i can give my yellow card back (re brain transplant joke and associated "abbey normal" young frankenstein graphic) i got two pages ago?:D

I know i know. address the argument not the arguer.:(

[chillzero]

There was a lot of in-thread speculation ... and not much reporting.

[rwguinn]

There was a lot of in-thread speculation ... and not much reporting.
Heck--
you evenm RESPONDED to one of his posts where he was "Speaker for Ace"
And it was reported--more than once. Some reports are more equal than others?

[chillzero]

Heck--
you evenm RESPONDED to one of his posts where he was "Speaker for Ace"
And it was reported--more than once. Some reports are more equal than others?

I didn't say none, I said not many. Which, compared to the amount of speculation and accusation, not just this thread, is true.

Look - I added the smiley face - no mod box. I wanted to make it a general soft reminder... that's all.

[A W Smith]

I didn't say none, I said not many. Which, compared to the amount of speculation and accusation, not just this thread, is true.

Look - I added the smiley face - no mod box. I wanted to make it a general soft reminder... that's all.

Can ya change my yellow card to a smiley face?

LOL

[rwguinn]

I didn't say none, I said not many. Which, compared to the amount of speculation and accusation, not just this thread, is true.

Look - I added the smiley face - no mod box. I wanted to make it a general soft reminder... that's all.I am full of rue...:blush:
I missed yours amd forgot mine...
I hate emoticons...

[chillzero]

Can ya change my yellow card to a smiley face?

LOL

Consider it done.



(of course, it's a longer face than usual... and the features are hard to make out.... ;) )

I am full of rue...:blush:
I missed yours amd forgot mine...
I hate emoticons...

s'ok

[Slayhamlet]

Took me awhile to catch on
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4116573&postcount=307

Post #17 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4068556&postcount=17), Post #88 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4074881&postcount=88), Post #134 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4082714&postcount=134)

And no, I didn't report my suspicions because they were impossible to prove to the satisfaction of the mod team. I was hoping maybe some of the regular posters to this thread would take the hint and realize for themselves who they'd been dealing with, but it didn't happen until after he was banned, pages upon pages later. I didn't push the point because it's against the rules, after all.

Also, I don't buy that "Steven Lupo Grossi" was ever anybody but the sockpuppet of Mr. Baker. Consider that "Steven" has never posted anything that didn't have some connection with the immediate interests (perhaps "obsessions" is a more fitting description) of Mr. Baker, from video compositing to "no plane at the Pentagon" to endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy. On top of that, their writing and posting styles were indistinguishable. Yeah, he did try the ruse of initially disagreeing with some of Ace's positions, only to come back later as a full-fledged acolyte. Pretty transparent. I'm surprised so many were fooled by it.

[TexasJack]

Although I was suspicious, what threw me was his March 2007 join date. Apparently he employed two accounts at the same time.

[pomeroo]

Well, that fooled... ummmm... nobody. :rolleyes:


I'm not that smart. What I suspect and what I know are two different things. Initially, I was prepared to believe that there was an actual second person, Steven Lupo Grossi, who obviously knew Ace and was speaking on his behalf. When he dropped the JAQ-patter and started spewing Ace's trademark pseudo-technical rubbish, the stuff that wows the uncritical dolts in tiny e-mail exchanges but gets torn apart by video professionals, I had a pretty good idea that we were debating The Man himself in all his ineducable lunacy. I wasn't absolutely certain, however, until he referred to his mental illness as a "loathsome disease."

[pomeroo]

Well, in future, perhaps some of you smartypants could remember not to discuss it in threads, but to report your evidence to the mods?

:)


What if we don't care about sock-puppets? I think they should be exposed, but not banned. Why is that opinion verboten? I keep looking for the part of the MA that requires me to report sock-puppets or remain silent. Where is it?

[gumboot]

There's two minor points that strike me about Ace's scenario, that may be a bit of a sticking point. One of them has been mentioned here, but the other has only just occurred to me.

His claim, in so far as I can reconstruct a coherent claim from the rather backward way he arranges his arguments, is that:

Originally the composited video was not originally supposed to show any debris emerging from the face of WTC2 opposite the impact face.
In order to make it easier to remove the composited image at the right moment the airliner footage was slowed down to quarter-speed after it passed the expected location of the right hand side of the tower.
Someone didn't press the stop button quickly enough, so the nose of the airliner was seen emerging from the left hand side of the tower on the Chopper 5 footage.
The signal on both Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 footage was quickly interrupted so as to hide the absence of any emerging debris from Chopper 7.
All remaining videotapes showing the far side of WTC2 from the impact were hurriedly retouched to show debris emerging from the point where the nose of the airplane on the composited video was seen.
Point number one is one of causality. The Chopper 7 video was interrupted before the debris emerged, and therefore before the operator error (in Ace's theory) that resulted in the apparent emergence of the nose of the airliner. How did the operator who interrupted the Chopper 7 feed know that the compositing of the Chopper 5 feed was about to be interrupted too late? Which feed was actually showing live as Flight 175 hit the tower? If it was only Chopper 5, there was no need to show Chopper 7, just hold it back and release it a few days later suitably doctored. If it was only Chopper 7, there was even less need to show Chopper 5; just cut off a few frames earlier, leaving no need to alter all the other videos. And if it was both on different stations, then Ace's theory requires a violation of causality. There is no possible scenario for the coincidence between the cutoffs of Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 feed interruptions that makes a shred of sense, other than just that is was a coincidence.

Point number two is that the slowed videotape hypothesis makes no sense. I've already touched on this, in that slowing down the airliner after it passes the tower edge is a stupid way to try to make it easier to stop the compositing at the right moment. The big question, though, is: What was supposed to happen, and how does it make sense in this scenario? Was the video feed supposed to switch abruptly back to a genuine live feed? Unlikely, because the sky would abruptly chance colour. Was the airplane video supposed to freeze-frame when the airplane had passed behind the tower? If so, why not simply do so in advance, using a video which simply replicated all the frames after the airliner had passed the tower edge with a single frame in which the airliner was hidden? It would have been trivially simple to construct such a video - or, nearly as simply, to construct one where the airliner is clipped off the images along a line down the centre of the tower - leaving no possibility of the error Ace claims occurred. Yet, instead of making up a suitable video ahead of time, Ace wants us to believe that the conspirators let all their plans stand or fall on the ability of one technician to press the right button within a second or so of the right moment, and that the conspiracy is revealed because he forgot to do it.

It's a classic piece of conspiracist logic. The planners had to be at the same time devilishly clever enough to understand that hundreds of thousands of people would honestly believe they'd seen a real plane hit WTC2 because they were told on TV that they must have seen it, technically able enough to perform a feat of real-time video compositing far beyond anything that had ever even been attempted before, and yet stupid enough to leave the split-second timing required to Joe Schmoe down in the video suite, who forgot to press the big red button at exactly the right moment.

Funnily enough, the parts where the conspirators are required to be fiendishly clever are always the parts the conspiracist can simply handwave away. And yet it turns out that the parts where the conspiracist needs a detailed explanation of the sequence of events are always the parts where the conspirators are required to be unable to formulate a coherent plan. Almost as if the fault were not in the hypothetical conspirators, but in the people formulating the hypotheses.

Dave


If you were compositing an aircraft impact live, the absurdedly obvious thing to do is cease the aircraft footage input immediately after impact. Why would you keep it going?

Even assuming you did for whatever reason keep it going, in the event of the "nose out" the mind-numbingly obvious solution is to at that point cease the aircraft footage input. Doing a complete black out and then fading back in on the faulty footage is simply illogical to a degree that is beyond comprehension.

[Slayhamlet]

What if we don't care about sock-puppets? I think they should be exposed, but not banned. Why is that opinion verboten? I keep looking for the part of the MA that requires me to report sock-puppets or remain silent. Where is it?

Sockpuppetry is explicitly forbidden by the membership agreement. You aren't required to report anything, of course, but you're not supposed to make accusations of sockpuppetry or even to intimate that another member might be a sockpuppet.

[fullflavormenthol]

Well honestly the problem with Ace Baker's treatise is that it isn't well thought out, or based upon a real working knowledge of the subject matter at hand.

1.) Ace believes that the functions of any video compositing program can be applied to any other compositing program, this isn't really true at all. After Effects is not Apple Motion is not New Tek Tricaster is not Avid.

2.) His logic isn't consistent, especially when trying to defend the footage as being stable enough to live composite on. He gets into issues about stabilizing the footage, and then tries to claim that by unstabilizing the footage you could tell if the plane moves strangely. It don't know, personally I could not follow what he was getting at, because it makes no logical sense from a video compositing special effects perspective. Especially given that he was attempting to claim that a gyro stabilizer would already make it stabile.

3.) He doesn't understand the programs in question. I mean this is outside his "treatise", but when I posted still images of my motion tracking of the footage; Ace argued that I had attempted to stabilize the footage. Ace had no idea that in After Effects motion tracking and stabilization work from the same engine. He has access to this program, and doesn't really understand this. His concept of motion tracking is drawing an outline over something, well this isn't really motion tracking. Basically he is tracing a shape, and calling it an analysis. Where as I would simply tell the program to lock in on an object and track its motion through the video. Ace doesn't understand the programs he is using for an analysis beyond a very superficial, "look what effect I can create" stance.

4.) He clearly doesn't understand that a gyrostabilizer on a helicopter doesn't make the footage completely stable. It merely means that is doesn't jitter, and that doesn't mean that small bumps and movements are not seen in the final footage.

5.) He obviously is not familiar with the knowledge base of many people within the broadcast industry. It is not uncommon for people to be a camera operator and know how to use video editing systems. This is because most colleges that teach broadcasting require their students to know these things, and people within the industry will learn as much as they can to get the best jobs.

6.) He uses the technical specs of current technology and software to justify what could have been done back then. He claimed that the chopper 5 footage wasn't low quality by linking to the technical specifications of the current model of the Flir camera that is a HD version. We don't how old the one used on Chopper 5 was, and he never presented that information. He links in his "treatise" to the current specs of the Avid Symphony.

So this is my review of this work of his. The main flaw is that Ace has a conclusion and simply manufactures the evidence to attempt to back it up, and he simply ignores and publicly attacks those that prove him wrong. His argument style is similar to the kid on youtube that well proven wrong will still claim victory and talk about pwning you in front of everybody.

My review of this thread...I don't like being lied to. I initially found myself here under the impression that someone who was neutral simply wanted to know opinions on Ace Baker's work. Quickly I found that I was at first arguing with a constant..."well according to Ace." By half way through it became very obvious I was arguing with Ace Baker.

[chillzero]

What if we don't care about sock-puppets? I think they should be exposed, but not banned. Why is that opinion verboten? I keep looking for the part of the MA that requires me to report sock-puppets or remain silent. Where is it?

Well...

Sockpuppetry is explicitly forbidden by the membership agreement. You aren't required to report anything, of course, but you're not supposed to make accusations of sockpuppetry or even to intimate that another member might be a sockpuppet.

There are also the bits (as I have repeatedly pointed out in this forum section) about personal attacks, and about derailing threads. If you don't care, then don't say anything. If you don't have enough evidence ... don't say anything.

In this case, some accusations were made quite early in Steven Lupo Grossi's career here. While we looked into the reports, other people mentioned suspicions in threads, and SLG reacted to that. I believe that on this occasion, as I have seen on a few others also, people proclaiming their suspicions hindered our ability to match up certain bits of evidence. It isn't rocket science, guys.

[pomeroo]

Sockpuppetry is explicitly forbidden by the membership agreement. You aren't required to report anything, of course, but you're not supposed to make accusations of sockpuppetry or even to intimate that another member might be a sockpuppet.


Yes, I am familiar with the membership agreement. I can't locate the part that requires me to report sock-puppetry or remain silent. Sorry, I'm being snide. There is nothing in the membership agreement that explicitly states that I can't expose a sock-puppet without requesting that he/she be banned. I'd like to nail down this issue once and for all. Is there an actual prohibition against identifying a sock-puppet or is it merely the mods' preference that we submit a private report or say nothing?

For the record, I have kept my suspicions to myself, with three exceptions: 1) I identified "theauthor" as Paul Doherty (several people here came to the identical conclusion) based on style and choice of topics; 2) I identified "roundhead" as "LastChild" based on style, specifically, his word-for-word use of certain phrases and epithets; 3) I identified "Steven Lupo Grossi" as Ace Baker based on (as I wrote in an earlier post) his technical prattle and his characterizing his delusions as a "loathsome disease."

[jmercer]

If you folks want to discuss sock-puppetry and the Membership Agreement, please take it to forum management. Thank you.

[fullflavormenthol]

Well it seems Ace has called me out. Well in such a way that doesn't actually mean anything. It is actually funny, which is why I decided to post it here. His rant actually makes little sense to anyone with knowledge of video compositing, and so I posted it for a laugh...for us who know better. Ace's rant against lil' ol' me? (http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html)