Lying with Pixels - Technology Article from 2000

[TruthSeeker1234]

In attempting to discredit my UA175 velocity study paper, RMAckey has claimed that video insertion technology did not exist in 2001. I invite you all to read "Lying with Pixels". Then comment upon whether or not RMackey is correct.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000711055157/http:/www.techreview.com/articles/july00/amato.htm

July/August 2000



Lying With Pixels
Seeing is no longer believing. The image you see on the evening news could well be a fake—a fabrication of fast new video-manipulation technology.

By Ivan Amato (http://web.archive.org/web/20000711055157/http:/www.techreview.com/articles/july00/amato.htm#bio)

[T.A.M.]

I reserve the right to comment until (A) I have read the article, and (B) RMackey has had a chance to do the same, make any clarifications he wishes, and any rebuttal he wishes.

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

In attempting to discredit my UA175 velocity study paper, RMAckey has claimed that video insertion technology did not exist in 2001. I invite you all to read "Lying with Pixels". Then comment upon whether or not RMackey is correct.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000711055157/http:/www.techreview.com/articles/july00/amato.htm
Please cite the post(s) in which RMackey, "has claimed that video insertion technology did not exist in 2001".

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ryan Mackey says, of my velocity study:

The unsupported and exceptional assumption that video editing capabilities of this sophistication [real time insertion] exist.


This is fitting, as the argument presented above violates the laws of physics, ignores current technological limits, gainsays witnesses, and rankles common sense.

(bolding added)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84621

[babazaroni]

If the video insertion technology is not realistic, then 'ignores current technological limits' still applies.

[Pardalis]

What about the amateur videos?

[Lothian]

Ryan, This is outrageous. Take it back and print an apology. How dare you call Truthseeker’s ramblings a study.

[Minadin]

You're actually comparing the yellow first down markers at american football games and the green-screen adds we see as the background to other sporting events, which is only the insertion of a simple, static, pre-determined element, to the instantaneous insertion of a high-velocity object moving across a video - and not just from 1 camera, or 5, such as you might see in sports, but in literally dozens of disparate angles, some of which came from moving platforms themselves, such as the helicopter footage, or were filmed by private citizens on handheld camcorders?

I think you'll have better luck with your "the government is illegitimate, we never voted on the constitution, therefore I should not be required to pay taxes" theory.

[Unsecured Coins]

You're actually comparing the yellow first down markers at american football games and the green-screen adds we see as the background to other sporting events, which is only the insertion of a simple, static, pre-determined element, to the instantaneous insertion of a high-velocity object moving across a video - and not just from 1 camera, or 5, such as you might see in sports, but in literally dozens of disparate angles, some of which came from moving platforms themselves, such as the helicopter footage, or were filmed by private citizens on handheld camcorders?

I think you'll have better luck with your "the government is illegitimate, we never voted on the constitution, therefore I should not be required to pay taxes" theory.

Thank god you didn't mention the GLOWPUCK

[Brainache]

From Ace's article:
For all the heavy breathing, however, some experts remain unconvinced that real-time video manipulation poses a real threat, no matter how good the technology gets. John Pike, an analyst of the intelligence community for the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C., says the credibility risks are simply too great for governments or serious organizations to get caught attempting to spoof the public. And for the organizations that would be willing to risk it, says Pike, the news folks—knowing just what the technology can do—will become increasingly vigilant.



In 2000 the technology was big and expensive.

Speaking as somone who has worked directing live news bulletins, I would say that everyone in the controlroom, on the studio floor and in the newsroom, tapes department, location cameras, location soundos, link operators, master control and presentation suites of all the networks involved would all be aware of something like this being used.

Not to mention all the witnesses actually on the ground in NYC.

For your scenario to make sense all of these people are keeping quiet about it. Every. Single. One.

[Minadin]

Thank god you didn't mention the GLOWPUCK

Oh, that thing was just awful.

[T.A.M.]

clearly, they have been greenscreening backgrounds for journalists on news programs since before 2000. I am pretty sure that is not the type of thing Mackey was referring to.

TAM:)

[Travis]

In attempting to discredit my UA175 velocity study paper, RMAckey has claimed that video insertion technology did not exist in 2001. I invite you all to read "Lying with Pixels". Then comment upon whether or not RMackey is correct. -snip-
(bolding mine)


What do you mean "attempting to discredit" your paper? Seems to me it was quite utterly and thoroughly debunked. We (meaning smart people other than me :D ) easily debunked it, cracked open some beers, joked about how easy it was and passed around the latest issue of Maxim.


Okay, so the beer and Maxim thing was actually last weekends poker night at my place but the debunking thing was true.

[twinstead]

One might as well provide a link to the inner workings of the Wright Brother's plane in response to a claim that interstellar flight is impossible...

[TruthSeeker1234]

clearly, they have been greenscreening backgrounds for journalists on news programs since before 2000. I am pretty sure that is not the type of thing Mackey was referring to.

TAM:)

Nor is it the type of thing referred to in the article. I thought you said you were going to read it?

Read the article. It is about much more than just putting the first down stripe on the football field.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Nor is it the type of thing referred to in the article. I thought you said you were going to read it?

Read the article. It is about much more than just putting the first down stripe on the football field.
The articles talks about:
* Removing someone from the picture
* Displaying different ads in a fixed location
* Overlaying tactical information on a UAV image of Kosovo

It does not deal with inserting a moving image.

[stateofgrace]

Ace, this is what you are asking people to believe.

No planes hit the Towers, all the film of them doing so is completely fake, everybody in New York who may have seen the planes hitting the towers are wrong and have been fooled for the last five years. Nobody at the TV networks noticed they were broadcasting fake films, nobody from anywhere on the planet as noticed, except you.

Why do you think that is Ace?

A planet with over 6 billion and only you noticed, doesn’t that’s seem slightly odd to you?

[MortFurd]

The article is long on speculation, and short on technology.
Even granting that the technoology might have been available:
1. It doesn't explain manipulating over 40 video streams from various sources simultaneously.
2. It doesn't explain how private videos could have been manipulated.
3. It doesn't get you out of explaining the witnesses who saw the plane crash into the building.

The article cites a demo done on a recording of Katarina Witt - said video acknowledged to have been from 1998. This is claimed to have been done in realtime, but there is no indication of the prep time. Also note, this is not the same as blending two live feeds.

The article shows a sample in the form of two photos of what such real time editing could do. Said sample being the replacing of an advertisement logo with a readout of the speed of a thrown ball during a baseball game. This is a level of manipulation widely acknowledged to have been in use at that time.

The Predator example is a different animal all together. There, they were matching stored images against a real time feed to spot changes. Since it was open countryside, changes would (for the most part) be movable objects, like the tanks and other vehicles the Army needed to spot. Not an easy job, but not the same as blending two live feeds.

Keep researching, Ace. One day you'll learn enough to realize that 19 terrorists hijacked 4 airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and crashed one outside of Shanksville.

[Minadin]

The example that the article gives are the sports ones:


The best-known examples of real-time video manipulation so far are “virtual insertions” in professional sports broadcasts. Last January 30, for instance, nearly one-sixth of humankind in more than 180 countries repeatedly saw an orange first-down line stretched across the gridiron as they watched the Super Bowl.


PVI and rivals such as New York-based Sportvision were airing virtual insertion products, including simulated billboards on walls behind major league batters

Even the more sophisticated applications are basically plotting pre-determined, static, relatively simple graphics on a moving background:

Instead of altering a football broadcast, the TIGER team manipulated a live video feed from a Predator, an unmanned reconnaissance craft flying some 450 meters above Kosovo battlefields. Rather than superimposing virtual lines or ads into sports settings, the task was to overlay, in real time, “georegistered” images of Kosovo onto the corresponding scenes streaming in live from the Predator’s video camera. The terrain images had been previously captured with aerial photography and digitally stored. The TIGER system, which automatically detected moving objects against the background, could almost instantly feed to the targeting officers the coordinates for any piece of Serbian hardware in the Predator’s view. This was quite a technical feat, since the Predator was moving and its angle of view was constantly changing, yet those views had to be electronically aligned and registered with the stored imagery in less than one-thirtieth of a second

And every other possible use is noted as mere speculation for what may be possible in the future:

Wilkinson’s eyes gleam when he describes a (near) future in which virtual insertion technology pushes advertisements to the personalized extreme.
So far, the widely witnessed applications of real-time video manipulation have been in benign arenas like sports and entertainment.
For all the heavy breathing, however, some experts remain unconvinced that real-time video manipulation poses a real threat, no matter how good the technology gets. John Pike, an analyst of the intelligence community for the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C., says the credibility risks are simply too great for governments or serious organizations to get caught attempting to spoof the public.

[peteweaver]

How do you explain the eye witnesses who saw UA175 Ace ?

How do you explain the fragments which came off UA175?

My friend's uncle was hit by a piece from it which fell to the ground, that piece almost killed him.

[gumboot]

Putting it bluntly, the article is scare-mongering BS.

They're talking about removing people or objects from video footage in real time, and the thrust of their article is "OMGZWTFBBG j0 can't trust TEH MEDIAZ or TEH SATTELITEZ!!!!!11!!!"

It's a load of [rule8]. Making anything "disappear" in real time requires a real time life-like render of elements of the image which don't exist (you remove a person from a frame, you have to fill in the blanks).

It cannot be done now (not in real time, and not effectively enough to fool anyone), and it certainly couldn't be done in 2000.

This sounds to me like that voice morphing presentation - something of little use or effectiveness, but announcing an interesting possibility for the future - which paranoid idiots have mangled into being some sort of super advanced technology.

-Gumboot

[MortFurd]

Putting it bluntly, the article is scare-mongering BS.

They're talking about removing people or objects from video footage in real time, and the thrust of their article is "OMGZWTFBBG j0 can't trust TEH MEDIAZ or TEH SATTELITEZ!!!!!11!!!"

It's a load of [rule8]. Making anything "disappear" in real time requires a real time life-like render of elements of the image which don't exist (you remove a person from a frame, you have to fill in the blanks).

It cannot be done now (not in real time, and not effectively enough to fool anyone), and it certainly couldn't be done in 2000.

This sounds to me like that voice morphing presentation - something of little use or effectiveness, but announcing an interesting possibility for the future - which paranoid idiots have mangled into being some sort of super advanced technology.

-Gumboot
In the cited Katarina Witt example, they have exactly that. The background doesn't change, so you can locate a spot a few frames away that has the same spot Katarina is in now. You'll have to correct it for the camera motion, but that's worlds easier than creating it whole cloth. Not having seen the video, I would speculate that Ms. Witt is seen skating with the ice and the skating rink walls (the short, half walls around the ice) as a background. That would put her on a static background, with the edge of the wall as a dividing line for the area where the spectators are seen moving.

Not that it matters. Making someone disappear is not blending two tracks with motion.

Nor does it explain the amateur videos and the witnesses.

[negativ]

Well now I'm convinced. In fact, I never noticed before, but if you look carefully at the footage, you can very clearly see the visible nylon strings attached to the plane. The other thing that gives it away is the ripple dissolve and the harp arpeggios in the background transitioning between the plane approaching and the fireball.

[Crungy]

Well now I'm convinced. In fact, I never noticed before, but if you look carefully at the footage, you can very clearly see the visible nylon strings attached to the plane. The other thing that gives it away is the ripple dissolve and the harp arpeggios in the background transitioning between the plane approaching and the fireball.

Good catch. The NWO was so impressed with Plan 9 From Outer Space that they brought Ed Wood back from the grave to fake the WTC airplane crashes.............until Ace figured it all out. :p

[T.A.M.]

You asked me for my opinion on whether RMackey was incorrect or not, and on that point I said I would wait until I had read the article, and until he had replied.

My comment above was in response to someone else making the comment about greenscreening.

TAM:)

[Alareth]

Thank god you didn't mention the GLOWPUCK

I LOVE the Glowpuck.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This question needs to be repeated:

What about the amateur videos?

Seems it's the elephant in Ace's room...

[Redtail]

How do you explain the eye witnesses who saw UA175 Ace ?

How do you explain the fragments which came off UA175?

My friend's uncle was hit by a piece from it which fell to the ground, that piece almost killed him.

Also, how did the holes get in the buildings? (Don't bother saying planted explosives Ace. If that were the case the entry holes would be going out of the building instead of in.)

[Swing Dangler]

In attempting to discredit my UA175 velocity study paper, RMAckey has claimed that video insertion technology did not exist in 2001. I invite you all to read "Lying with Pixels". Then comment upon whether or not RMackey is correct.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000711055157/http:/www.techreview.com/articles/july00/amato.htm
By Ivan Amato (http://web.archive.org/web/20000711055157/http:/www.techreview.com/articles/july00/amato.htm#bio)

I haven't read RMAckey's comment or post but if he did state that technology didn't exist in 2001 he would be incorrect according to the article. It looks as if the technology was in place as early as 1999 and possibly 1998.

Deleting people or objects from live video, or inserting prerecorded people or objects into live scenes, is only the beginning of the deceptions becoming possible. Interesting quote from the article.


Which begs the question, when Jesus comes back, what channel will he be on?;)

Peteweaver I'm glad your uncle is alive, but did he have a part number to identify the part that almost hit him?

[Swing Dangler]

This question needs to be repeated:
Seems it's the elephant in Ace's room...

Isn't the video or videos in discussion at this point network television?

[TruthSeeker1234]

This question needs to be repeated:

[What about the amateur videos?]

Seems it's the elephant in Ace's room...

They didn't air live. No one disputes that videos can be fabricated offline. This thread is about the technology to insert pre-existing video into live video. No informed person disputes this either.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey, your bodyguards aren't doing too well here. What about it? Ready to retract?

And how about your claim that my velocity analysis hypothesis does not generate falsifiable predictions? Ready to retract that one too?

[Swing Dangler]

How do you explain the eye witnesses who saw UA175 Ace ?

How do you explain the fragments which came off UA175?

My friend's uncle was hit by a piece from it which fell to the ground, that piece almost killed him.

Unless the tail number is visible or parts identified by number, there is no empirical evidence supporting what they saw was UA175.

[cloudshipsrule]

I haven't read RMAckey's comment or post but if he did state that technology didn't exist in 2001 he would be incorrect according to the article.

This is wrong. The technology to insert/remove static items existed. The technology to do what truthboy claims was done did not exist. Just ask Pixar!

[Swing Dangler]

This is wrong. The technology to insert/remove static items existed. The technology to do what truthboy claims was done did not exist. Just ask Pixar!

Source please?

[twinstead]

Unless the tail number is visible or parts identified by number, there is no empirical evidence supporting what they saw was UA175.

Irrelevant. The claim is that NOTHING hit the building. What exactly it was, and the evidence that suggests it was UA175, is another discussion

[Corsair 115]

No one disputes that videos can be fabricated offline.Sure. But neither have you attempted to demonstrate in any way that those videos recorded and then broadcast later were fakes.

Once again, I keep coming back to this: those of us with a good eye for detail and who are familiar with special effects in general from having read about them and watched large amounts of them can spot a special effect, sometimes easily. I can spot the CGI cars in a ad for the movie Live Free and Die Hard on the first viewing just by the way the cars look and the way they move. These ol' eyeballs of mine are not easily fooled by special effects; I'm sure there are others who are equally, if not more, adept at spotting spotting them.

Not one video I've seen of the events of 9/11 looked faked, not one. Not one showed the characteristic telltale signs of image fakery. And this was from viewing them not as grainy, low resolution YouTube videos, but as broadcast quality videos shown on news broadcasts displayed a good-sized television screen.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Sure. But neither have you attempted to demonstrate in any way that those videos recorded and then broadcast later were fakes.

Once again, I keep coming back to this: those of us with a good eye for detail and who are familiar with special effects in general from having read about them and watched large amounts of them can spot a special effect, sometimes easily. I can spot the CGI cars in a ad for the movie Live Free and Die Hard on the first viewing just by the way the cars look and the way they move. These ol' eyeballs of mine are not easily fooled by special effects; I'm sure there are others who are equally, if not more, adept at spotting spotting them.

Not one video I've seen of the events of 9/11 looked faked, not one. Not one showed the characteristic telltale signs of image fakery. And this was from viewing them not as grainy, low resolution YouTube videos, but as broadcast quality videos shown on news broadcasts displayed a good-sized television screen.

Tell you what, Corsair. If you and, say, 5 others on this board promise to take a challenge, I'll promise to do the work needed to create it.

I'll present two videos of a plane flying in the air and slipping behind a building. One will be legitimate, and the other will be a composite. You'll know that (at least) one is composited, because the plane will be identical in both videos. The background and buildings will be different.

You and the others will decide which you think is which.

Game?

[Pardalis]

Game?


9/11 is not a game. Real people died when the planes crashed.

Stop feeding this lunacy, please.

[Swing Dangler]

Irrelevant. The claim is that NOTHING hit the building. What exactly it was, and the evidence that suggests it was UA175, is another discussion

Much apologies. I was under the impression that this topic was that something hit the building, just not UA175.

[Swing Dangler]

Tell you what, Corsair. If you and, say, 5 others on this board promise to take a challenge, I'll promise to do the work needed to create it.

I'll present two videos of a plane flying in the air and slipping behind a building. One will be legitimate, and the other will be a composite. You'll know that (at least) one is composited, because the plane will be identical in both videos. The background and buildings will be different.

You and the others will decide which you think is which.

Game?

I will take the challenge.

[Corsair 115]

I'll present two videos of a plane flying in the air and slipping behind a building. One will be legitimate, and the other will be a composite. You'll know that (at least) one is composited, because the plane will be identical in both videos. The background and buildings will be different.

You and the others will decide which you think is which.I'll give it a whirl. But there's one major caveat: such videos must be of reasonable quality and of a reasonable resolution and screen size. Trying to do any meaningful analysis of a video with the resolution and picture quality of a typical YouTube video is difficult at best - having sufficient detail is the absolutely key component in being able to make any worthwhile judgements.

[Rich M]

I take it you'll be producing these videos yourself, Ace? This is going to be hilarious, because there's only the slightest possibility that you've got the technical nous or rendering power to pull this off even remotely convincingly.

And it still wouldn't explain the live feeds.

[Arus808]

Still no explanation from ACE about the 40+ other videos (non network related) videoed by tourists, and other sight seers and those WHO WERE THERE LIVE AND IN PERSON.

[Unsecured Coins]

I LOVE the Glowpuck.


here's the part of the debate where I throw your sanity, ability to acquire friends, your love life, and your sexual preference into question with one fell swoop as I implore others to stand around you and laugh in a manner from the likes of which this forum has never seen.

[Swing Dangler]

Still no explanation from ACE about the 40+ other videos (non network related) videoed by tourists, and other sight seers and those WHO WERE THERE LIVE AND IN PERSON.

My objective is to analyze and interpret the velocity of UA flight 175 on approach to WTC2, and the nose cone-shaped "debris" which exited WTC2, as recorded by "Chopper 5".

Ace's study is for the Chopper 5 video at this point.

[CHF]

Why is anyone even debating TS?

He's clearly not mentally well.

[babazaroni]

Tell you what, Corsair. If you and, say, 5 others on this board promise to take a challenge, I'll promise to do the work needed to create it.

I'll present two videos of a plane flying in the air and slipping behind a building. One will be legitimate, and the other will be a composite. You'll know that (at least) one is composited, because the plane will be identical in both videos. The background and buildings will be different.

You and the others will decide which you think is which.

Game?

And how will we know that this is a 'live insertion' which is capable of real-time insertion from a range of spontaneous camera positions?

[Gravy]

Two more threads from Crazy Central today? Back to ignore you go, "truth"seeker. Get well soon.

[negativ]

It would seem reasonable to assume that if nothing hit the buildings, there would surely be some video of "nothing" hitting the south tower at least.

ETA: By the way:

Quit jacking around on internet forums and go to the press.

[Pardalis]

Quit jacking around on internet forums and go to the press.


I personally don't see how increasing his muscle mass will help Truthseeker's mental health. :con2:

[Swing Dangler]

Is this really a picture of the North face of WTC 2 where the nose cone emerged?

[Anti-sophist]

Tell you what, Corsair. If you and, say, 5 others on this board promise to take a challenge, I'll promise to do the work needed to create it.

I'll present two videos of a plane flying in the air and slipping behind a building. One will be legitimate, and the other will be a composite. You'll know that (at least) one is composited, because the plane will be identical in both videos. The background and buildings will be different.

You and the others will decide which you think is which.

Game?

100% absolutely accepted. In a heartbeat.

Good luck with that.

[Kent1]

Is this really a picture of the North face of WTC 2 where the nose cone emerged?

This location is also where one of those resilient, mass melting thermite devices was placed.
(or so says Steven Jones...)

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Ace's "nose" is nothing but a bunch of smoke/debris...

You can see the irregular shape in this image: http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/SnailSwallow.jpg

[pomeroo]

Ace, this is what you are asking people to believe.

No planes hit the Towers, all the film of them doing so is completely fake, everybody in New York who may have seen the planes hitting the towers are wrong and have been fooled for the last five years. Nobody at the TV networks noticed they were broadcasting fake films, nobody from anywhere on the planet as noticed, except you.

Why do you think that is Ace?

A planet with over 6 billion and only you noticed, doesn’t that’s seem slightly odd to you?



Stateofgrace, the point is that it doesn't seem odd to Ace that a poorly-educated musician of average intelligence notices things that every scientist and engineer in the world overlooks. That is why I label him insane.

[Arus808]

Ace's study is for the Chopper 5 video at this point.


sorry, but that's now how a he should be approaching this. He should be taking EVERYTHING into account, if he wants to debate this

that means explaining how his claim could be done on 40+ other people's cameras and media that was covering and taping the event, and how he can account for the statements of WITNESSES to those planes hitting the towers.

He wants to talk about video technology, but there is a HUGE nail that puts all of his "analysis" to the trash can

PEOPLE
WHO
WERE
THERE
SAW
THE
PLANES
HIT
THE
TOWERS


Not amount of semantics, analysis (by someone who clearly doesn't understand the technology in the first place) of video, can explain away what was seen by those people who WERE THERE that morning. And that's including what my Uncle, Aunt and COUSIN saw that morning.


BEFORE beginning to analyze video, HE Should be analyzing what people saw that day, in person.

[Swing Dangler]

sorry, but that's now how a he should be approaching this. He should be taking EVERYTHING into account, if he wants to debate this

that means explaining how his claim could be done on 40+ other people's cameras and media that was covering and taping the event, and how he can account for the statements of WITNESSES to those planes hitting the towers.

He wants to talk about video technology, but there is a HUGE nail that puts all of his "analysis" to the trash can

PEOPLE
WHO
WERE
THERE
SAW
THE
PLANES
HIT
THE
TOWERS
Not amount of semantics, analysis (by someone who clearly doesn't understand the technology in the first place) of video, can explain away what was seen by those people who WERE THERE that morning. And that's including what my Uncle, Aunt and COUSIN saw that morning.
BEFORE beginning to analyze video, HE Should be analyzing what people saw that day, in person.

I think the point is to bring the issue here to have it attacked so that he can defend it or if it can't be defensed, to move onto a different line of inquiry.

And of accounts of people who thought they saw a missile?

[twinstead]

And of accounts of people who thought they saw a missile?

I will almost guarantee there were probably 1 or 2 people who thought they saw a leprechaun out of all the hundreds or thousands of witnesses. So?

Of course according to some, eye witness testimony must always agree to a man to be valid, right?

[pomeroo]

I will almost guarantee there were probably 1 or 2 people who thought they saw a leprechaun out of all the hundreds or thousands of witnesses. So?


One or two drunks/street crazies would be more than sufficient for Lyte Trip to demand a Congressional investigation--one that would exclude all scientists, engineers, architects, and aviation experts, of course.

[SpitfireIX]

I'll give it a whirl. But there's one major caveat: such videos must be of reasonable quality and of a reasonable resolution and screen size. Trying to do any meaningful analysis of a video with the resolution and picture quality of a typical YouTube video is difficult at best - having sufficient detail is the absolutely key component in being able to make any worthwhile judgements.


I accept with the same reservations.

[Swing Dangler]

I will almost guarantee there were probably 1 or 2 people who thought they saw a leprechaun out of all the hundreds or thousands of witnesses. So?

Of course according to some, eye witness testimony must always agree to a man to be valid, right?

I don't recall reading about leprechauns in the PA transcripts, a missile on the other hand I do recall reading about.

According to ARSUS...BEFORE beginning to analyze video, HE Should be analyzing what people saw that day, in person.

So we have people who saw leprechauns, missiles, and planes. This might explain why Truth is analyzing a single piece of the video record.

[gumboot]

And of accounts of people who thought they saw a missile?

1) How many people actually say they saw a missile?
2) How many people didn't see it and speculate it was a missile?
3) How many people didn't see it and speculate it was an aircraft?
4) How many people actually say they saw an aircraft?
5) How many people explicitly state it was a large United Airlines airliner?

-Gumboot

[TruthSeeker1234]

Where's Ryan Mackey?

[stateofgrace]

Where's Ryan Mackey?

Is this a new game? , can we all play along? Go on than Ace, give me my first clue, where is Ryan Mackay?

[WildCat]

Where's Ryan Mackey?
Where is your post regarding the thousands of people who saw the planes hit the towers with their own eyes?

[Swing Dangler]

1) How many people actually say they saw a missile?
2) How many people didn't see it and speculate it was a missile?
3) How many people didn't see it and speculate it was an aircraft?
4) How many people actually say they saw an aircraft?
5) How many people explicitly state it was a large United Airlines airliner?
-Gumboot

How many saw the tail number of the airplane to positively identify the aircraft?

[WildCat]

How many saw the tail number of the airplane to positively identify the aircraft?
What other 767's went missing that day?

[apathoid]

How many saw the tail number of the airplane to positively identify the aircraft?



That sounds like something Rob Balsamo would say. So it was some other UA 767 that hit WTC2?

[babazaroni]

How many saw the tail number of the airplane to positively identify the aircraft?

And if you are going to question basic assumptions, why would that positively identify the aircraft?

[WildCat]

And if you are going to question basic assumptions, why would that positively identify the aircraft?
Because the NWO would never put a fake tail number on the plane. That would be illegal!

[rwguinn]

How many saw the tail number of the airplane to positively identify the aircraft?
How many people match the dental and DNA remains of the passengers on flight 175, which remains were recovered from the rubble of the WTC?

Using the inability to read the 1 foot tall numbers on the vertical tail of a 570 MPH jet aircraft at a distance of 1/4 mile as "evidence" that it wan't UAL175 is about the stupidest, most insane idea ever dreamed up by anybody--especially when the remaining physical evidence is overwhelming.

[Unsecured Coins]

Stateofgrace, the point is that it doesn't seem odd to Ace that a poorly-educated musician of average intelligence notices things that every scientist and engineer in the world overlooks. That is why I label him insane.


I say me and Ace have a Riff Off. Winner gets to decide if there were planes or not

[beachnut]

In attempting to discredit my UA175 velocity study paper, RMAckey has claimed that video insertion technology did not exist in 2001. I invite you all to read "Lying with Pixels". Then comment upon whether or not RMackey is correct.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000711055157/http:/www.techreview.com/articles/july00/amato.htm

July/August 2000



Lying With Pixels
Seeing is no longer believing. The image you see on the evening news could well be a fake—a fabrication of fast new video-manipulation technology.

By Ivan Amato (http://web.archive.org/web/20000711055157/http:/www.techreview.com/articles/july00/amato.htm#bio)
It is a nutty idea flight 175 was faked. Since thousands of eyes saw flight 175 hit, your whole idea on 175 is flat wrong. Which part of wrong are you having a problem with. Therefore you have wasted a thread again on 175.

Now this brings up a question. Why are you supporting an idea which is wrong? What a waste.

[beachnut]

How many saw the tail number of the airplane to positively identify the aircraft?
Are you this challenged when it comes to research and facts?

4 aircraft were destroyed on 9/11, I bet you can not prove 175 was not one of them. I bet your life on it. You are safe, you will never prove it was not. This kinds of positively identifies 175, and when you use your head you can prove it.

4 sets of passengers died on 9/11, try an prove the passengers on 175 did not die. Their remains were in the WTC. I wonder why the DNA matched the passengers? Did you miss this too?

Radar data proves 175 was the aircraft that hit the WTC. Bet you can not prove the radar data was not real. Bet you forgot that radar data is stored, as in recorded. The experts can go back and find 175 and track it accurately. Darn, your evil plot story was foiled by data. Facts and data do in the Swing Dangler again, and again, and again. Darn facts. Even moose and squirrel could foil your best story.

I think the tail number is superfluous. What do you think? What other insignificant false data do you have?

[beachnut]

Is this really a picture of the North face of WTC 2 where the nose cone emerged?
What is your point? Debris is expelled out the window, the nose cone of a jet is fiberglass. Is there a full moon, or just mentally challenged people making up junk?

[slingblade]

Is it possible that traffic cameras can image one's license plate because they are a specific type of camera, set up at a specific angle, and operated for the purpose of imaging license plates?

Or can any old schmuck with a camera perform such feats of speed, especially in an emergency situation, with no warning?

[calebprime]

I say me and Ace have a Riff Off. Winner gets to decide if there were planes or not

I volunteer to be on the distinguished panel of judges. I have a Masters in Riffology.

Was that you in that video? That guitarist--he have fast hands! Dam! (DJJ)

[WildCat]

Is it possible that traffic cameras can image one's license plate because they are a specific type of camera, set up at a specific angle, and operated for the purpose of imaging license plates?
Yes, they also have a flash so the shutter speed can be fast enough so that the plate isn't blurred because the car is moving.

[TruthSeeker1234]

This thread is about debunking Mackey. Mackey says that video insertion technology is beyond technological limitations. The article linked in the OP begs to differ.

Perhaps we should take TAM's advice and wait until Mackey shows up and has something to say for himself.

[WildCat]

Mackey says that video insertion technology is beyond technological limitations. The article linked in the OP begs to differ.
The article says no such thing.

Meanwhile...
Where is your post regarding the thousands of people who saw the planes hit the towers with their own eyes?

[Brainache]

This thread is about debunking Mackey. Mackey says that video insertion technology is beyond technological limitations. The article linked in the OP begs to differ.

Perhaps we should take TAM's advice and wait until Mackey shows up and has something to say for himself.

Well, since Mr Mackey has said you are on his ignore list because of your complete lunacy, I think we'll be waiting a long time.

[Mr. Skinny]

Where's Ryan Mackey?
People with professional jobs sometimes have to travel in performance of said job, sometimes for as long as a week or more. Then, when they return home, they have personal affairs to attend to that don't necessarily include replying to CT's on internet forums at the top of their list of priorities.

I'm sure you understand.

[T.A.M.]

And since when did any thread become about debunking a particular person, rather than a theory.

TAM:)

[Corsair 115]

I'm interested in knowing if TS will indeed go through with his offer to create his own aircraft video fakery to see if it will pass the test of the eagle-eyed folks around here. If nothing else, if he attempts to create such a video he'll get an idea of how complicated and time consuming it can be.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I will.

[Corsair 115]

I will.I'll be interested in seeing your results, but bear in mind the resolution caveat I mentioned earlier. Personally, I'd like to see a video that's playable at a default size of at least 640x480, and preferrably 800x600.

[Unsecured Coins]

I volunteer to be on the distinguished panel of judges. I have a Masters in Riffology.

Was that you in that video? That guitarist--he have fast hands! Dam! (DJJ)

No, This is me
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/JayeandBullseye.jpg

The guy in the vid (and my avatar) is the late great Dimebag Darrell Abbott.

By th eway Ace, that Les Paul is tuned down to Drop - Cb at all times. Anytime you wanna match musical wits, holla at ya boy.

[cloudshipsrule]

Off topic: Unsecured Coins,

What is that unit beside you in the picture? Air purifier, vacuum motor or robot?

[quixotecoyote]

The really interesting thing is that the article is not condeming television/cable news media. It's warning about misleading videos posted on the internet. Know of any of those?

Even cool heads like Pike, however, concede that the media’s fortress of skepticism has an Achilles heel: the Internet. “The issue is not so much your ability to get fake video on CNN, but to get it online,” he says. That’s because so much Internet content is unfiltered.

[Unsecured Coins]

Off topic: Unsecured Coins,

What is that unit beside you in the picture? Air purifier, vacuum motor or robot?


I really have no idea. The picture was taken at my in-laws and it was always in the corner. It was just one of those things I just never asked about

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This thread is about debunking Mackey. Mackey says that video insertion technology is beyond technological limitations. The article linked in the OP begs to differ.

Perhaps we should take TAM's advice and wait until Mackey shows up and has something to say for himself.
Maybe you should have PM'ed him instead of being a :dqueen

[cloudshipsrule]

I really have no idea. The picture was taken at my in-laws and it was always in the corner. It was just one of those things I just never asked about

NWO stuff, huh?

[Unsecured Coins]

NWO stuff, huh?


indeed

[A W Smith]

I really have no idea. The picture was taken at my in-laws and it was always in the corner. It was just one of those things I just never asked about


NO ONE dare ask about their in laws Ironic breeze units.:D

[TruthSeeker1234]

No, This is me
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/JayeandBullseye.jpg

The guy in the vid (and my avatar) is the late great Dimebag Darrell Abbott.

By th eway Ace, that Les Paul is tuned down to Drop - Cb at all times. Anytime you wanna match musical wits, holla at ya boy.

C flat? Round these parts we usually just call that B. Love low tunings. That's really low though. Must use fatter strings, I'm guessing. You should maybe just get a baritone guitar.

Match musical wits? Sounds intriguing, but, whatever do you mean?

[D'rok]

C flat? Round these parts we usually just call that B.

As CT Forum lurker, I have to say.....nice one Ace! It's not often you get a legitimate jab in.

Point scored.


....back to loony-land you go.

[TruthSeeker1234]

ZZZZZZZZZ. For the zillionth time. I'm not aware of any "thousands" of people who say they saw planes. I'm not aware of any "hundreds" of people who say they saw planes.

I've seen published statements from around 15 or so individuals who say they saw plane(s), and most of them work for the mainstream media.

If anyone wants to provide links to "thousands" or "hundreds" or even "dozens" of individuals who say they saw planes, I'll be happy to look. I'm not going to accept anyone's word on this without evidence.

Evidence, please.

[Unsecured Coins]

C flat? Round these parts we usually just call that B. Love low tunings. That's really low though. Must use fatter strings, I'm guessing. You should maybe just get a baritone guitar.

Match musical wits? Sounds intriguing, but, whatever do you mean?

Woo!! so he DOES pay attention.


I use 10-56's on everything, but I have been known to go up to a 70 if I need to. I don't need a baritone, but if I do, I'll use my 1972 ES-335. (note - I am a collector)

But as far as musical wits go, how did I know you weren't going to get that reference, or... "have you forgotten" already?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Woo!! so he DOES pay attention.


I use 10-56's on everything, but I have been known to go up to a 70 if I need to. I don't need a baritone, but if I do, I'll use my 1972 ES-335. (note - I am a collector)

But as far as musical wits go, how did I know you weren't going to get that reference, or... "have you forgotten" already?

I must've forgotten. Perhaps a few memory cells were "Blown to Kingdom Come (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDYv3oFnUkU&mode=related&search=)". Do remind me.

[Unsecured Coins]

I must've forgotten. Perhaps a few memory cells were "Blown to Kingdom Come (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDYv3oFnUkU&mode=related&search=)". Do remind me.

I'm saying you couldn't write an original song to save your life. How about that?

[Foolmewunz]

ZZZZZZZZZ. For the zillionth time. I'm not aware of any "thousands" of people who say they saw planes. I'm not aware of any "hundreds" of people who say they saw planes.

I've seen published statements from around 15 or so individuals who say they saw plane(s), and most of them work for the mainstream media.

If anyone wants to provide links to "thousands" or "hundreds" or even "dozens" of individuals who say they saw planes, I'll be happy to look. I'm not going to accept anyone's word on this without evidence.

Evidence, please.

Ace, let's try this again, okay? We've done it once before but we'll do it a step at a time.

I saw the plane hit.
I was in a building in Jersey City (Exchange Place) with a picture window view of the towers.
I was with a minimum of twenty people in my section of our offices, and I later learned that there were another seventy in the conference room and other executive offices.
All of us were staring at the conflagration of WTC1 and heard the second plane approaching AND THEN WITNESSED IT CRASHING INTO THE TOWER.

This was ONE FLOOR of a ~35 floor building (not sure of the exact floors)... so in that building alone there were probably a thousand people who witnessed it.

There are about five such towers around that area with equally direct views of the WTC and WFC complex. Add another 5000.

Additionally, there were thousands of people down on the boardwalk and pier watching the events.

And this was one city, Jersey City. All up the western shore of the Hudson, there were tens of thousands of people in buildings and along the waterfront watching WTC 1 burn, and a large percentage of those saw the Boeing slam into and through the building. The best views were from Liberty Park (Southern end of Jersey City) up to around the Holand Tunnel.

And that was just on the Jersey side. (I suspect far more people on our side of the river had a clear view. Manhattan is crowded with buildings and skyscrapers, and there were noises on the ground so people looking at #1 wouldn't have necessarily heard the jet approaching like we did.)

So, .... "tens of thousands" is a fair estimation.

Why haven't you read our statements? Well, you've read mine, but you might be surprised to know that the FBI did not go out and interview 10,000 people to ask if we saw a plane hitting WTC 2. Therefore we're not a part of the record.

Please cite me the statistics for the number of people, on record, who witnessed the Challenger disaster. Everyone saw the Challenger explode, live on television. Everyone saw 175 hit WTC 2, live on television. Why would they go around interviewing eyewitnesses to compile a mass of data in the expectation that some frustrated loon would demand the evidence seven years later?

> Swingdangler.... Ya know, I was a little distracted and didn't think to look at the tail fin to get a number!

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'm saying you couldn't write an original song to save your life. How about that?

Oh, OK. Well, all I can say is I've got some people fooled! I've got around 500 published titles, and I provide for my family quite comfortably, we own a home in the hills, with a pool, and a recording studio, living in a very expensive city, and all from writing original music.

You?

[beachnut]

Oh, OK. Well, all I can say is I've got some people fooled! I've got around 500 published titles, and I provide for my family quite comfortably, we own a home in the hills, with a pool, and a recording studio, living in a very expensive city, and all from writing original music.

You?
I wonder how much better you would do if you were not such a poor researcher. You did not make money off of research on 9/11, or are you selling lies like LC?

All that money and still not able to think and be rational, as in Beam Weapon, dustified WTC etc. Just goes to show you do not need to be rational or logical to make money. Making up lies does not impede the ability to make money. I bet there is a song in there somewhere.

As agents we know you use to play for cookies, and you should stick to playing and drop the critical thinking research gig (or is that your cover story?).

[Unsecured Coins]

Oh, OK. Well, all I can say is I've got some people fooled! I've got around 500 published titles, and I provide for my family quite comfortably, we own a home in the hills, with a pool, and a recording studio, living in a very expensive city, and all from writing original music.

You?

Me? I move every 2-3 years because my military duty doesn't allow for long term residential status. I never sign a lease for more than a year at a time because God knows when I'll have to pack up my wife and kid, 2 cats and my bird, and my more expensive guitars into one of my 2 obnoxiously large SUV's going to our next station. I am by no means "rich" but I do have alot of stuff I don't need that I refuse to share with anybody. Of course, I do retire in 6 and a half years as to make good on my promise to die a happy man on a golf course somewhere out in the middle of nowhere at the ripe old age of 37 (age of retirement, not death. insha allah). That's why guitar playing is more of a hobby to me than a source of income, even though I have played with the likes of Kenny Wayne Sheppard, Nick Catanese (of Black Label Society), PumpJack, Brand New Sin, and Bullistic, to name a few.

[A W Smith]

Oh, OK. Well, all I can say is I've got some people fooled! I've got around 500 published titles, and I provide for my family quite comfortably, we own a home in the hills, with a pool, and a recording studio, living in a very expensive city, and all from writing original music.

You?
McDonald's makes billions. does not mean their "food" is good for you or nutritious. So you write pulp crap thats gobbled up by the masses. doesn't mean its original or artistic.

[pomeroo]

ZZZZZZZZZ. For the zillionth time. I'm not aware of any "thousands" of people who say they saw planes. I'm not aware of any "hundreds" of people who say they saw planes.




Yes, it is true that you are not aware that New York City is the biggest city in America. You are not aware that after the first plane hit the North Tower, thousands of people watched the skies from the street and their office windows. You are not aware that thousands of eyewitnesses saw the second plane crash into the South Tower.

You are not aware of these FACTS because you are insane.





I've seen published statements from around 15 or so individuals who say they saw plane(s), and most of them work for the mainstream media.

If anyone wants to provide links to "thousands" or "hundreds" or even "dozens" of individuals who say they saw planes, I'll be happy to look. I'm not going to accept anyone's word on this without evidence.

Evidence, please.



You are not interested in the overwhelming evidence that contradicts your deranged fantasy. You are insane.

Do not use insults or accusations of insanity to argue your point.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Me? I move every 2-3 years because my military duty doesn't allow for long term residential status. I never sign a lease for more than a year at a time because God knows when I'll have to pack up my wife and kid, 2 cats and my bird, and my more expensive guitars into one of my 2 obnoxiously large SUV's going to our next station. I am by no means "rich" but I do have alot of stuff I don't need that I refuse to share with anybody. Of course, I do retire in 6 and a half years as to make good on my promise to die a happy man on a golf course somewhere out in the middle of nowhere at the ripe old age of 37 (age of retirement, not death. insha allah). That's why guitar playing is more of a hobby to me than a source of income, even though I have played with the likes of Kenny Wayne Sheppard, Nick Catanese (of Black Label Society), PumpJack, Brand New Sin, and Bullistic, to name a few.

Dude, you probably shred. You're probably great. Rock on.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Guys, I readily admit that IF planes had crashed into the WTC, THEN they would have been seen by thousands. I've been to NYC many times, and it's nothing if not chock full of humanity.

But the videos are fake, the planes display no crash physics, you've got a nose coming out of a building, you've got CNN covering up the replay with a logo that takes up 1/3 of the screen, you've got two different stations that fade to black as the plane hits, there are eyewitnesses who say there was no planes, there's no wreckage except for stuff that was provably planted, and. . .

There is a distinct dearth of eyewitnesses who say they saw planes. And it just so happens that most of the folks who did go on TV and saw planes, just happen to work for the media.

Ron, you can call me insane a thousand more times. Your "evidence" is underwhelming to say the least.

[Zep]

Guys, I readily admit that IF planes had crashed into the WTC, THEN they would have been seen by thousands. I've been to NYC many times, and it's nothing if not chock full of humanity.

But the videos are fake, the planes display no crash physics, you've got a nose coming out of a building, you've got CNN covering up the replay with a logo that takes up 1/3 of the screen, you've got two different stations that fade to black as the plane hits, there are eyewitnesses who say there was no planes, there's no wreckage except for stuff that was provably planted, and. . .

There is a distinct dearth of eyewitnesses who say they saw planes. And it just so happens that most of the folks who did go on TV and saw planes, just happen to work for the media.

Ron, you can call me insane a thousand more times. Your "evidence" is underwhelming to say the least.
Nope.


Next!

[The Mysterian]

7358

Is this really a picture of the North face of WTC 2 where the nose cone emerged?

[NeoRicen]

TS, If you do this thing where you make a fake video and a real one and have us guess, you CANNOT use anything that wasn't available in 2001 and you have to do it in the same time period from 9/11 to when the video was released.

PS: No nose came out the other ***ing side of the building, it's called an explosion and if you saw past the first couple of ***ing frames you'd see that, it's not even the same shape as the nose of the plane you nut.

[WildCat]

Off topic: Unsecured Coins,

What is that unit beside you in the picture? Air purifier, vacuum motor or robot?
[frank]
It's a Telefunken U47.
[/zappa]

[Arus808]

add to that my aunt, uncle and cousin who saw 175 hit that south tower....

again ace, is grasping at straws.

we should stop arguing with a true life lunatic.

[Brainache]

Ace says he knows that NYC is crowded with people, many of whom must have seen these horrific events. Yet he still contends that no plane hit the towers.

Here's my question for Ace: If no plane hit the towers, why haven't thousands of people come forward in the last 5 years saying that all the videos are fake? As far as I can tell it's only people like you who weren't there that say this.

Where are the people who were there that agree with you?

These people would mostly be New Yorkers and people from New Jersey, who as far as I'm aware, don't have a reputation for being shy about expressing their opinions.

How about it Ace, heard of any witnesses that saw the buildings explode by means other than a bloody great aeroplane?

[Corsair 115]

But the videos are fake... You have not conclusively demonstrated that on any of the forty-plus angles available. You tried to do so with one particular live image, but there were errors in your procedures and methodology, as was pointed out in the relevant thread.

...the planes display no crash physics... In what way? It all looks spot-on to me. And this comes from somone who can spot visual effect shots precisely because they don't exhibit the proper subtleties of motion and the related physics.

...you've got a nose coming out of a building No, you've got something you're claiming in the undamaged nose section of the aircraft coming out of the building. You have not conclusively demonstrated your assertion, and the possibility that it is merely debris which looks like that has not been discounted.

...you've got CNN covering up the replay with a logo that takes up 1/3 of the screen... Station/network ID "bugs" as they are sometimes called? (Please don't get me started on a rant about the darned things.) You can see those things everywhere now, and all the time. Nothing unusual about it at all.

...there are eyewitnesses who say there was no planes This is a miscategorization of their statements. They don't say there were no planes, they say they didn't see the aircraft because they didn't look beforehand or their viewing angle was blocked. Not seeing the aircraft is not the same thing as saying there were no aircraft. Asky them if they heard the aircraft - jet engines are quite loud and even in a busy, crowded city such noise would be heard. (Look no further than the Naudet brothers' video of the first impact - you can clearly hear the jet engines, and the firefighters react by looking upwards towards the sound before the first impact takes place.)

...there's no wreckage except for stuff that was provably planted... There most certainly was wreckage; have you forgotten the story of the woman who was injured by part of the landing gear? As for planting wreckage, you have provided absolutely nothing to substantiate that claim.

...There is a distinct dearth of eyewitnesses who say they saw planes. No, if there is a dearth it is of those who told their accounts to the media. Do you seriously expect the media to track down and interview every single potential witness in a city of millions? Do you seriously expect every single potential eyewitness in a city of millions to be found and interviewed by law enforcement authorities?

What you are claiming is like saying because every one of the 55,000 people who attended Saturday's Mets vs. Yankees baseball game were not interviewed by the media or otherwise had their eyewitness account of the game recorded, the baseball game therefore did not take place. This in spite of the video evidence of the game having been played. This in spite of the supporting documentary and other evidence of the game having been played.

No, you are saying because documented accounts cannot be found from all of the 55,000 spectators, the game therefore didn't take place - all other supporting evidence be damned. This does not strike you as being an argument bordering on the completely ludicrous?

...And it just so happens that most of the folks who did go on TV and saw planes, just happen to work for the media. And what about all the media from other countries who were there covering the story? The CBC, CTV, BBC, just to name three television networks, along with many, many more. New York is a major world city, and a great many media outlets have reporters or bureaus there. Should I presume then that all the media of the world was in cahoots to cover up the truth?

Your "evidence" is underwhelming to say the least.No, the only thing that's underwhelming are your attempts to discredit the official version of events. You have failed to conclusively demonstrate even one thing significantly wrong with it. Your claims of fakery and supposedly impossible physics are the product of misunderstanding of how things really work. You also make the error of not heeding or considering the merits of points others have made to you; your greater error though is in assuming your conclusion is correct and then seeing only what you want to believe.

I am now very eagerly awaiting your faked aircraft video. I am quite interested in seeing what you think can pass as realistic compared to those of us with more experience in the area think can pass as realistic.

[Foolmewunz]

Guys, I readily admit that IF planes had crashed into the WTC, THEN they would have been seen by thousands. I've been to NYC many times, and it's nothing if not chock full of humanity.

But the videos are fake, the planes display no crash physics, you've got a nose coming out of a building, you've got CNN covering up the replay with a logo that takes up 1/3 of the screen, you've got two different stations that fade to black as the plane hits, there are eyewitnesses who say there was no planes, there's no wreckage except for stuff that was provably planted, and. . .

There is a distinct dearth of eyewitnesses who say they saw planes. And it just so happens that most of the folks who did go on TV and saw planes, just happen to work for the media.

Ron, you can call me insane a thousand more times. Your "evidence" is underwhelming to say the least.

So much wrong it's hard to know where to start.

There are witnesses who did not see a plane. Well, then they're not witnesses. Were they staring at the south face of WTC 2 at the moment your beam weapon struck, so can prove by not seeing the plane that there was no plane. I didn't see a large black labrador retriever in the park behind my apartment building this morning. But, a friend just sent me a picture of her walking her labrador in that park. How can that be? I didn't see it. It couldn't have happened. You're generally absurd, Ace. You're getting absurder.

Provably planted? Proven by whom? When was that? Are you going to get Killtown to draw you little stick figures of black ops agents sneaking the debris into place? Absurd squared.

The people on television who witnessed the planes were working for the media. Gasp! Reporters work for the media? Who'd a thunk it! Absurd cubed.

But let's take your overall theorem, here. If there was one witness who didn't work for the media and wasn't a government employee, who witnessed Flt 175 flying into WTC 2, then your entire theory is disproven. Well, I'm that witness. Ergo, your whole theory goes out the window (or out the north side hole along with the nose cone)!

[slingblade]

I really have no idea. The picture was taken at my in-laws and it was always in the corner. It was just one of those things I just never asked about


Oxygen. My mom has one of those.

[qarnos]

Is this a new game? , can we all play along? Go on than Ace, give me my first clue, where is Ryan Mackay?

Is this like those "Where's Wally?" books? (That's "Where's Waldo?" for USAians).

[T.A.M.]

So ACE, here is the easiest thing in the world to do...you are rich, a house in the hills, with a pool, etc...

Take out an add in a major NYC newspaper asking for WITNESSES TO THE PLANES HITTING THE WTCs ON 9/11 to call you.

TAM:)

[Foolmewunz]

So ACE, here is the easiest thing in the world to do...you are rich, a house in the hills, with a pool, etc...

Take out an add in a major NYC newspaper asking for WITNESSES TO THE PLANES HITTING THE WTCs ON 9/11 to call you.

TAM:)

... at a 1 800 (or 1 888) number!

[pomeroo]

Guys, I readily admit that IF planes had crashed into the WTC, THEN they would have been seen by thousands. I've been to NYC many times, and it's nothing if not chock full of humanity


Yes, Ace, you are correct--accidentally, of course. Thousands of people did see Flight 175 crash into the South Tower.



But the videos are fake



No, Ace, you were caught lying again. Your incompetent attempt to play scientist was, as usual, torn to shreds by people who are much smarter and know much more than you. Note that I state that you were lying. Your errors have been explained to you far too often for them to be honest mistakes.


the planes display no crash physics,


But you have demonstrated that you are ignorant of basic principles of science. You are too unintelligent and uneducated to make such a determination.


you've got a nose coming out of a building



You were caught lying again: there was no nose; just debris.



you've got CNN covering up the replay with a logo that takes up 1/3 of the screen, you've got two different stations that fade to black as the plane hits,



Nope. The videos clearly show the plane.



there are eyewitnesses who say there was no planes,



No, you're lying. There are witnesses who say they didn't see the plane.




there's no wreckage except for stuff that was provably planted, and. . .



No, you been caught lying. The wreckage was not planted. You are insane.



There is a distinct dearth of eyewitnesses who say they saw planes.



Liar. There are thousands.




And it just so happens that most of the folks who did go on TV and saw planes, just happen to work for the media.




Liar. I happen to know three people who saw Flight 175 crash into the South Tower. Your lies will never fool these people.


Ron, you can call me insane a thousand more times.


Okay, let's start: you are insane and you are a liar.



Your "evidence" is underwhelming to say the least.



No evidence is "mine." The evidence that jihadists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings is overwhelming. Your mind is enslaved by your illness and compels you to press your evil agenda in the face of facts and reason.

[Mancman]

you've got two different stations that fade to black as the plane hits, there are eyewitnesses who say there was no planes, there's no wreckage except for stuff that was provably planted, and. . .


Both the stations which suffered a signal interruption had equipment at the WTC.
One of these was on a camera that was zoomed in on WTC1, and could not have shown the second plane, thus there was no need for a fade to hide any anamolies. Both videos show clear signs of signal interruption.

And there is a video which was broadcast live, shows the 'nose', yet does not have any blackout. Your theory is absolute garbage. See here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2601827#post2601827


Eyewitnesses who said there were no planes? Hey, would someone in this position see the second plane? Yes or no?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102524603d9a32ffb7.jpg


I don't recall anyone proving that this landing gear tyre was planted. Embedded in a 5-10 ton column tree no less:
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-2d/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg

[calebprime]

Oh, OK. Well, all I can say is I've got some people fooled! I've got around 500 published titles, and I provide for my family quite comfortably, we own a home in the hills, with a pool, and a recording studio, living in a very expensive city, and all from writing original music.

You?

Ace is at least a competent musician. Anyone who's worked for a number of years doing film-scoring is probably more than competent. You don't continue working if you are insane or incompetent.

He's probably written huge amounts of music--original, unoriginal, good, bad, indifferent, etc.

His version of Have You Forgotten is an improvement--better drumming, for one thing...

His taste in music is another issue. His connection to reality outside of music and films is another issue.

Probably his experience adapting his musical style to suite the artifice of film, and his work in the studio makes him think that everything is manufactured in the same way.

He's more like a Scientologist than he's like Christophera. Not insane, just living in a bubble.

This is also about over-investment in a bad idea, and extreme suspicion. Hard to admit that he's wrong, at this point.

His persistent mistake is this top-down "It's All Related" stuff.

His libertarian theories are totally separate from whether the war in Iraq is a good thing (I don't think it is) or whether planes hit the towers. (They did)

Where he really sounds willfully stupid is about denying all the eye-witnesses, or thinking he can do expert analysis of videos.

He sounds crazy and paranoid when he starts talking about government shills. When he sees fit to include in his video the symbols on American currency, he seems to be a lunatic like David Icke.

But it's really about living in a bubble--not craziness of the certifiable kind.

[pomeroo]

Ace is at least a competent musician. Anyone who's worked for a number of years doing film-scoring is probably more than competent. You don't continue working if you are insane or incompetent.




His insanity takes a particular form. If you lined up two thousand eyewitnesses to the crash of Flight 175, the thought would never cross Ace's mind that their existence undermines his nonsensical theory. He'd set his jaw and undertake to discredit each individual account. His mindset is narcissism carried to a pathological extreme. He will bend reality to his wishes--facts be damned!





He's probably written huge amounts of music--original, unoriginal, good, bad, indifferent, etc.

His version of Have You Forgotten is an improvement--better drumming, for one thing...

His taste in music is another issue. His connection to reality outside of music and films is another issue.

Probably his experience adapting his musical style to suite the artifice of film, and his work in the studio makes him think that everything is manufactured in the same way.

He's more like a Scientologist than he's like Christophera. Not insane, just living in a bubble.

This is also about over-investment in a bad idea, and extreme suspicion. Hard to admit that he's wrong, at this point.




He can't back away from ideas that have been crushingly refuted. He is uneducable.



His persistent mistake is this top-down "It's All Related" stuff.

His libertarian theories are totally separate from whether the war in Iraq is a good thing (I don't think it is) or whether planes hit the towers. (They did)

Where he really sounds willfully stupid is about denying all the eye-witnesses, or thinking he can do expert analysis of videos.




Ignoramuses who are sure that they can out-shout any expert are a dime-a-dozen, e.g., the moon landing deniers.




He sounds crazy and paranoid when he starts talking about government shills. When he sees fit to include in his video the symbols on American currency, he seems to be a lunatic like David Icke.

But it's really about living in a bubble--not craziness of the certifiable kind.



He is crazy and paranoid. But his extreme narcissism accounts for his intense desire to remake reality according to his emotional needs and his bumptious confidence in skills he doesn't possess.

[pomeroo]

Hey, Ace, I was just thinking: the photo posted by Mancman really does suggest that a plane hit the building. You know what I mean? I don't know what sort of hole Judy's nonexistent beam weapons produce, but I'll bet it looks different from the hole produced by a plane--from the hole in the photo.

[calebprime]

He is crazy and paranoid. But his extreme narcissism accounts for his intense desire to remake reality according to his emotional needs and his bumptious confidence in skills he doesn't possess.

Agreed. Narcissism fits.

(I'm now guilty of half a dozen inter-thread contradictions, which I will try weasel out of if anyone calls me on them. Plus I don't like to speculate about people's mental status. But in extreme cases of obstinacy, all you can do is speculate.)

[pomeroo]

Agreed. Narcissism fits.

(I'm now guilty of half a dozen inter-thread contradictions, which I will try weasel out of if anyone calls me on them. Plus I don't like to speculate about people's mental status. But in extreme cases of obstinacy, all you can do is speculate.)


I realize that I'm very nasty with Ace, but there's a reason. I've written about an ex-girlfriend who watched Flight 175 crash into the South Tower. She was a wreck for the better part of a year. I can recall many late-night phone conversations in which she simply needed a shoulder to cry on. Imagine the sort of lunatic who would tell her that she's lying just to feed his own sick fantasies. Probably I should try harder to be civil, but I can't seem to manage it, and, in all honesty, I don't think people like Ace merit civility. They don't care how much pain they inflict, and they do it to promote a truly evil cause. It's impossible to respect such adversaries.

[The Doc]

I agree with Ron.

Ace does not merit any level of attention. He is insane, and I fail to see why he is getting so much attention around here.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But the videos are fake, the planes display no crash physics. . .


And what the hell do you know about "crash physics"?

There is a distinct dearth of eyewitnesses who say they saw planes.


As was asked of you, how many people are on record having seen the Challenger explode? Relatively few, no doubt. Is that evidence that the live video of the accident was also faked? No, of course not.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Both the stations which suffered a signal interruption had equipment at the WTC.
One of these was on a camera that was zoomed in on WTC1, and could not have shown the second plane, thus there was no need for a fade to hide any anamolies. Both videos show clear signs of signal interruption.

What clear signs are those? I see videos that quickly fade to black. Signal interruption does not and cannot do this. Signal interruption can cause noise, pixelization, freeze-frame, but not a fade to black. A black screen requires a signal.



And there is a video which was broadcast live, shows the 'nose', yet does not have any blackout. Your theory is absolute garbage. See here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2601827#post2601827

You're talking about this video -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnRt3cHuAmE

I see no evidence this "EuroNews" video was broadcast live. First there's no audio on it. Second, it shows a series of edited clips. This was posted by Webfairy, and she put the word "live" in quote marks, appropriately so.

Furthermore, consider these two videos, which do have audio, and which were broadcast live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wQZznaAVQ&mode=related&search=

They both show no "nose out" event at all. In the Chopper 5 Pinocchio video, the nose out occurs before, that is ahead of the explosion. These two videos would obviously show the nose out, if it had been real.




Eyewitnesses who said there were no planes? Hey, would someone in this position see the second plane? Yes or no?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102524603d9a32ffb7.jpg

That seems like about the same type of view that Alt+f4 had, and she says she saw a plane hit the building.



I don't recall anyone proving that this landing gear tyre was planted. Embedded in a 5-10 ton column tree no less:
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-2d/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg

The tire doesn't look like it's "embedded", it looks like it's just sitting there.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What clear signs are those? I see videos that quickly fade to black. Signal interruption does not and cannot do this. Signal interruption can cause noise, pixelization, freeze-frame, but not a fade to black. A black screen requires a signal.

I'm still amazed you call that a "fade". Then again, you've misused the phrase "pyroclastic flow" and still misuse the term "cross-bracing", so I guess it's not all that surprising...

The picture cuts out, period. There is no "fade to black"; it's a cut to black, which does happen with digital sources. Artifacting is only apparent if the loss/interruption of signal is not abrupt.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'm still amazed you call that a "fade". Then again, you've misused the phrase "pyroclastic flow" and still misuse the term "cross-bracing", so I guess it's not all that surprising...

The picture cuts out, period. There is no "fade to black"; it's a cut to black, which does happen with digital sources. Artifacting is only apparent if the loss/interruption of signal is not abrupt.

Oh, it's a fade all right. I've analyzed the Chopper5 video. The fade takes place over 3 frames. The first is about 10% faded, the second about 50% faded, and the the third is black. Motion continues throughout the fade. It cannot possibly be a signal interruption.

[gumboot]

Ace is at least a competent musician. Anyone who's worked for a number of years doing film-scoring is probably more than competent. You don't continue working if you are insane or incompetent.



Not that I disagree with the general cut and thrust of your post, but the above isn't necessarily true in the film industry. Quite a few long-working and, indeed, successful filmmakers are both insane and incompetent.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

What clear signs are those? I see videos that quickly fade to black. Signal interruption does not and cannot do this. Signal interruption can cause noise, pixelization, freeze-frame, but not a fade to black. A black screen requires a signal.


This is patently false.

Noise, for example, does in fact require a signal. Zero signal will result in a black screen. This is an absolute undeniable fact. You're thinking of tuning on a television. We're not talking about tuning on a television. We're talking about a television live feed between a camera and the broadcaster.

No signal from camera = black screen. Pixelation occurs when there is interference in a digital signal (the equivalent of analogue noise). A freeze frame occurs during a signal drop out. If the signal drop out lasts longer than a few moments it will go black.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Please stop embarrassing yourself.




Oh, it's a fade all right. I've analyzed the Chopper5 video. The fade takes place over 3 frames. The first is about 10% faded, the second about 50% faded, and the the third is black. Motion continues throughout the fade. It cannot possibly be a signal interruption.


The scenario you are proposing can only possibly be performed with a manual fader. It is physically impossible for a human being to perform a fade to black in 1/10 of a second. In addition, even fading as fast as physically possible, in virtually all brands of vision mixer the actual fade will occur more slowly.

Were it necessary, for whatever reason, to cut away from this shot, the vision mixer would do just that - they would cut to another shot. This would happen instantly, would not result in a black screen, and would not be detected by anyone.

The "fade" is almost certainly a byproduct of the digitisation and compression of the image.

-Gumboot

[calebprime]

Well, not to belabor the point.

But, having said that creative people (geniuses) can be insane in yet another thread, let me clarify.

You probably know this already, from working on films yourself.

In the science-documentary scoring that I've done, and the lower-than-A-List work that Ace has done, you have to crank out a lot of product--appropriate to the mood and theme, and accurately timed. You have to be able to work the technology. You have to re-write if the client says so. You can't afford assistants.

So--unlike Paul McCartney--you aren't getting someone else to do your tech work and some of the actual composition for you.

You can have a mood disorder, you can be eccentric, you can be narcissistic as hell, but you have to be capable of delivering, and doing the work by yourself. No one else does it for you, and people won't re-hire you if you don't deliver.

Film-composers are too low on the totem pole to be able to be royally crazy like some actors, directors, or star musicians.

One example is the story in Wired about Tom Scott trying to score Neighbors, and trying to avoid an insane John Belushi.

I'm sure there are exceptions--probably some good stories.

I'd enjoy hearing some of your stories about insane and incompetent film-makers--or film-composers.

[T.A.M.]

Now gumboot, working in the film and video industry, you, like 8den, who also works in it (a video editor no less) should know better than to argue with a musician over the issue of video signals and video fades...come on man.

TAM;)

[Alareth]

Is this like those "Where's Wally?" books? (That's "Where's Waldo?" for USAians).

I found Waldo, it's that Carmen San Diego woman who is proving to be elusive ...

[Alareth]

Oh, it's a fade all right. I've analyzed the Chopper5 video. The fade takes place over 3 frames. The first is about 10% faded, the second about 50% faded, and the the third is black. Motion continues throughout the fade. It cannot possibly be a signal interruption.

No Ace, you've "analyzed" a reduced quality, multi-generational digitized copy of the Chopper5 video.

[Swing Dangler]

Oh, it's a fade all right. I've analyzed the Chopper5 video. The fade takes place over 3 frames. The first is about 10% faded, the second about 50% faded, and the the third is black. Motion continues throughout the fade. It cannot possibly be a signal interruption.

Could it also be a blank insert?

A blank image is a special case of a uniform image and comprises an all black image. Normally, blanking is part of a visual transition sequence where blank images are inserted between cut and/or fade transitions. Blank images are also used when a pause is required to inform the viewer of a change of context, such as between commercials, or to mark a major change in location or time. When blanking is used to separate commercial and program segments, experimental data indicates that blanking times may vary significantly between one and eighty or more fields. When blanking is used within a program or commercial segment, experimentally obtained blanking times are more consistent, normally ranging between four and sixteen fields.
Source: PatentStorm (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5959697-description.html)

[D'rok]

Ace is at least a competent musician. Anyone who's worked for a number of years doing film-scoring is probably more than competent. You don't continue working if you are insane or incompetent.

As someone who spent 10 years as a working musician, I can anecdotally assert that there is no necessary correlation whatsoever between musical ability and accurate perception of reality. If anything, musicians are more susceptible to woo than the average shmoe. (Except for us drummers of course. We are by nature experts at pattern recognition and logical construction of the whole from relevant parts. ;)).

[Alareth]

I have noted before in other threads that a large number of the rank and file truthers appear to be active in music or related fields (DJ's, etc). This observation comes from comments they have made or knowing what they do for a living via personal admission or knowing their actual identities.

This leads me to a theory that whatever it is that makes a person adept in music may be related to mental characteristics that cause a person to be prone to the belief in conspiracies.

[Mancman]

What clear signs are those? I see videos that quickly fade to black. Signal interruption does not and cannot do this. Signal interruption can cause noise, pixelization, freeze-frame, but not a fade to black. A black screen requires a signal.

See here:
http://i16.tinypic.com/6cq52e1.gif
Obviously more than a simple fade. There is white banding. The picture is all over the place.

And you still haven't explained why a 'fade' would even occur on this camera - which could not show the plane.


You're talking about this video -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnRt3cHuAmE

I see no evidence this "EuroNews" video was broadcast live. First there's no audio on it. Second, it shows a series of edited clips. This was posted by Webfairy, and she put the word "live" in quote marks, appropriately so.

Well I know for a fact that this precise view was broadcast live in the UK on the BBC. The video is on youtube but swamped beneath BBC WTC7 videos. However, ABC also broadcast this view live and here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMucVeew8eg


Furthermore, consider these two videos, which do have audio, and which were broadcast live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wQZznaAVQ&mode=related&search=

They both show no "nose out" event at all. In the Chopper 5 Pinocchio video, the nose out occurs before, that is ahead of the explosion. These two videos would obviously show the nose out, if it had been real.

Turns out the 'nose out' (jet of debris) is real then, here it is, before any explosion on the north face:
http://i18.tinypic.com/4z1coqh.jpg

Easy to miss, considering you are trying to perform analysis on a hugely compressed and pixelated video.

That seems like about the same type of view that Alt+f4 had, and she says she saw a plane hit the building.

Except that Alt+f4 was inside a building, not at street level. You did not answer my question, by the way.


The tire doesn't look like it's "embedded", it looks like it's just sitting there.

Any evidence that it was planted? I thought it was proven?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Well, they found a piece of fuselage on the roof of WTC5, in October I believe. Unfortunately, the Sept 23 aerial photo doesn't show the piece.

Also, you've got that landing gear on the sidewalk underneath the tarp. It would have had to fly over two buildings, and bounce into that position. There don't seem to be any scars caused by the bouncing landing gear. And the videos don't show any landing gear flying out of the building.

Then you've got the miracle passport. Even Frank Greening has said he's suspicious about that one.

[Corsair 115]

Also, you've got that landing gear on the sidewalk underneath the tarp. It would have had to fly over two buildings, and bounce into that position. There don't seem to be any scars caused by the bouncing landing gear. And the videos don't show any landing gear flying out of the building. But they clearly show some form of debris being ejected.

Then you've got the miracle passport.Why is paper surviving miraculous? Remember all the odd bits and assortments which survived the space shuttle Columbia's break up during re-entry? And that was from speeds and altitudes far beyond what we're talking about in regards to 9/11.

I'm inclined to say you've been watching too many Hollywood movies and TV shows and think the way things are depicted in them are actually the way things work in the real world. There is actually relatively little resemblance.

[TruthSeeker1234]

That's a nice link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMucVeew8eg

Lots of weird things. The logo covers up where the nose out would be, so you can't tell. There is a double beep sound 17 seconds before the plane hits. It sounds like it could be a sync pop. In scoring to picture, we always put sync pops at the head and tail, as a reference mark to make sure sound and picture elements line up properly.

In fact, September Clues has put together all of the live shots, and they all have some sort of audio glitch at 17 seconds before. Coincidence?

And of course, we have Don Dahler saying he didn't see a plane, that "the building just exploded".

[Corsair 115]

Just a friendly reminder, TS, but if you're going to produce your attempt at equivalent video fakery you'd better stop posting here so much because such an endeavour is going to take up a lot of your time, and I, for one, really do want to see the results of your effort.

[tacodaemon]

As someone who spent 10 years as a working musician, I can anecdotally assert that there is no necessary correlation whatsoever between musical ability and accurate perception of reality. If anything, musicians are more susceptible to woo than the average shmoe. (Except for us drummers of course. We are by nature experts at pattern recognition and logical construction of the whole from relevant parts. ;)).


I did enjoy watching this video of Ace describing his process of scoring a flick by the name of "Mojave Phone Booth"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3899797523558301146

[Alareth]

I did enjoy watching this video of Ace describing his process of scoring a flick by the name of "Mojave Phone Booth"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3899797523558301146


He looks and sounds so ... normal and well adjusted.

[PhantomWolf]

Well one man alive probably got the best look at Ft 175 seconds prior to it hitting WTC 2, and that guy was Stanley Praimnath (http://stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm), an assistant vice president of loan operations at Fuji Bank Limited. He was on the 81st floor of WTC, almost exactly where the plane struck. He saw it out his office window before it hit his office. Everyone else in the offices there at the time died, and he probably should have too except for a miracle that the engine missed the desk he was cowering under. Ace, he was there. He says that there was a plane, he says it hit the building, he says that after it did there were parts of the plane in his office and he had to scramble over them to escape. Answer this question! Are you calling this man a liar?

[twinstead]

Answer this question! Are you calling this man a liar?

Rhetorical question. Ace's position by its very definition requires this man to be a liar.

So, yes, whether he admits to it our not, Ace is calling him a liar. He will try to weasel out of it by suggesting that Mr Praimnath was simply mistaken, though.

It's such a trivial thing to be so mistaken by something like that, huh?

[D'rok]

I did enjoy watching this video of Ace describing his process of scoring a flick by the name of "Mojave Phone Booth"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3899797523558301146

There's a real fine line between creative genius and insanity. All the really talented creative types I worked with over the years exhibited the same sort of mania. In order to create, they have to enter a kind of free-associative, organic fugue-state that us sidemen just can't pull off - we have skill rather than talent. Unfortunately for the creative types, their mania frequently spills over into regular life. Ace appears to have it bad. I hope for his sake that he at least has the creative musical talent to go along with it.

[PhantomWolf]

Rhetorical question. Ace's position by its very definition requires this man to be a liar.

So, yes, whether he admits to it our not, Ace is calling him a liar. He will try to weasel out of it by suggesting that Mr Praimnath was simply mistaken, though.

It's such a trivial thing to be so mistaken by something like that, huh?

Oh I know that, but I want him to actually have the guts to come out and say so directly. I want to see if he has the kahooies to actually bald-faced call one of the survivers of the Towers a liar, or if like usual he's just going to ignore it because it doesn't fit into his agenda.

[hellaeon]

No, This is me
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/JayeandBullseye.jpg

The guy in the vid (and my avatar) is the late great Dimebag Darrell Abbott.

By th eway Ace, that Les Paul is tuned down to Drop - Cb at all times. Anytime you wanna match musical wits, holla at ya boy.


Bloke check out www.darklord.com.au

blokes in my band have sick twin neck guitars
Rythm tuned to drop Eb (has bass strings!)
Lead neck normal Eb

[Unsecured Coins]

Bloke check out www.darklord.com.au (http://www.darklord.com.au)

blokes in my band have sick twin neck guitars
Rythm tuned to drop Eb (has bass strings!)
Lead neck normal Eb


sweet mother of mary, any band that writes a song called "Our Father, Who Art In Hell" are o-tay in my book
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/EddieMurphyBuckwheat.jpg

[Crungy]

Then you've got the miracle passport. Even Frank Greening has said he's suspicious about that one.

What about the three miracle Deep Purple CDs and live worm experiment that were found after the Columbia explosion?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2017143#post2017143
Conspiracy? As plenty of threads here have discussed, history shows many bizarre occurances that follow chaotic events.

[PhantomWolf]

What about the three miracle Deep Purple CDs and live worm experiment that were found after the Columbia explosion?

And one of the mission patches which would have had to have been torn off the sleeve of the arstronaut.

Items survived 93's crash too. Numerous driver's licences, passports and ID cards, some of which were used as exhibits during the Moussaoui trial. I believe that there have been many unlikely objects survive plane crashes previous to that as well. I have heard about a letter a passanger wrote to his wife on an airline napkin (serviette) that then survived the crashing of his plane back in the 80's.

[WildCat]

Bloke check out www.darklord.com.au (http://www.darklord.com.au)
Wow! You guys play at an event called "Alcoholocaust"... why didn't I think of that name for a party before? :D

eta: I am so going to steal that name!

[hellaeon]

Wow! You guys play at an event called "Alcoholocaust"... why didn't I think of that name for a party before? :D

eta: I am so going to steal that name!

I came up with it and suggested it to the promoter. He was happy and it actually ran 2 times with us headlining both, the second to 400+ punters.
My mate does a lot of the bigger show poster artwork down here in Aus for metal tours and festivals and he had a picture of darth vader holding a bottle of VB (beer in Aus). It was hilarious.

There was going to be an alcoholocaust 3 but the current gig climate down here is hard for smaller promoters to get in amongst the bigger guys bring down all the international acts...thats ok though...I just jump on their bandwagon as well hahaha....

Its a perfect name for a metal gig. Metal heads are just loud drunks hahaha.
From a marketing point of view its a win win as the venue is happy we are encouraging drunks and then later on we get a better cheer plus our mistakes are covered up with beer ears.

[jhunter1163]

Google "Timothy Good" and "UFOs" for a prime example of musical genius coupled with total nuttery. This guy was a good enough violinist to win a place in the Royal Philharmonic (in 1963), played 14 years with the London Symphony, and is totally bats**t insane.

[robinson]

Wow! You guys play at an event called "Alcoholocaust"... why didn't I think of that name for a party before? :D

eta: I am so going to steal that name!

It is Urban slang, first published around 1996, in the SFBMA Dictionary.

Gibson got the term from bike messengers in SF.

"And sometimes she'd wind up clean, what they called it when you didn't have any deliveries, and that could be great too, just go over to the Alcoholocaust or one of the other messenger bars and drink espresso until Bunny paged her."

from All Tomorrow's Parties
William Gibson
October 7, 1999

Machine head got it from Gison,

From This Day [CD-SINGLE]
Artist:Machine Head
Track Listings
1. From This Day (Edit)
2. Alcoholocaust
3. House Of Suffering

Release Date: December 21, 1999

And now there is both an album by that name, as well as a band.

[8den]

Oh and Ace I'll join your little experiment. But I'll need something better than a youtube. Something like a couple of quicktimes, that can be FTP'd and downloaded. I'll be looking at them on an Avid Adrenaline, with an engineering grade monitor.

Oh and you'll get course credit if you use technology available in 2001 not later, and serious course credit if you do it real time.

But please all rough work and calculations must be demostrated using the work book provided.

[Mancman]

Well, they found a piece of fuselage on the roof of WTC5, in October I believe. Unfortunately, the Sept 23 aerial photo doesn't show the piece.

Also, you've got that landing gear on the sidewalk underneath the tarp. It would have had to fly over two buildings, and bounce into that position. There don't seem to be any scars caused by the bouncing landing gear. And the videos don't show any landing gear flying out of the building.

Then you've got the miracle passport. Even Frank Greening has said he's suspicious about that one.

Or perhaps you couldn't find the piece. Not surprising when you consider the fact that it would have been covered in dust and surrounded by other debris, and was about 6ft long.

The landing gear in the street was from Flight 11, there were witnessess to the exit of this piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7akMaVDeH4

"I looked out of the window and saw what appeared to be an enormous tire smash into the ground"

Miracle passport? I guess they had miracle plane seats as well. And miracle envelopes containing mail, miracle UA Milage cards belonging to passeners, etc, which also survived.

That's a nice link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMucVeew8eg

Lots of weird things. The logo covers up where the nose out would be, so you can't tell. There is a double beep sound 17 seconds before the plane hits. It sounds like it could be a sync pop. In scoring to picture, we always put sync pops at the head and tail, as a reference mark to make sure sound and picture elements line up properly.

In fact, September Clues has put together all of the live shots, and they all have some sort of audio glitch at 17 seconds before. Coincidence?

And of course, we have Don Dahler saying he didn't see a plane, that "the building just exploded".

I can see the debris above the logo. Here is the BBC link, the debris is visible here as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45fZlX1ZCU0

In the ABC footage I hear a beep 14 seconds before impact, not 17. I don't hear any audio glitches in the BBC footage.

Don Dahler was only 4 blocks south of the WTC, the plane would have been completely blocked by the buildings from his vantage point.


Are you not even going to pass comment on these?

Obvious signal disruption where you claimed a simple fade to black:
http://i16.tinypic.com/6cq52e1.gif

Debris exit visible where you claimed it was not:
http://i18.tinypic.com/4z1coqh.jpg

[Belz...]

Is Ace still saying that live insertion technology on a film shot via unstable helicopter-borne hand-held camera was possible in 2001 ?

[pomeroo]

Is Ace still saying that live insertion technology on a film shot via unstable helicopter-borne hand-held camera was possible in 2001 ?



For him, correcting an error is quite simply impossible.

[zeppy_gorrila]

9/11 is not a game. Real people died when the planes crashed.
I think this is the main problem with the truth movement. It bothers me more than anything else about Avery and the like. They find it so easy to discount these deaths and write them off. Human life loss is real, and for them to spew pentagon bull parallels with holocaust denying and the like. How does he point a finger at a family and say "Your (family member) did not die. You have been lied to. Check my cool site to see how and grab a T-Shirt while you're there."

[Pardalis]

I think this is the main problem with the truth movement. It bothers me more than anything else about Avery and the like. They find it so easy to discount these deaths and write them off. Human life loss is real, and for them to spew pentagon bull parallels with holocaust denying and the like. How does he point a finger at a family and say "Your (family member) did not die. You have been lied to. Check my cool site to see how and grab a T-Shirt while you're there."

Exactly. And they are using the victims' family members themselves, which is utterly sickening, like that poor girl Sabrina (http://video.wnbc.com/player/?id=112179) and the late Dan Wallace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMkkA16mNJk&eurl=). They are literally abusing them, using their trauma to advance their sick theories and political agenda.

This shows how the Twoofers are morally bankrupt.