For Truthseeker1234: 9/11 Plane 'Eyewitnesses' Explained

[calebprime]

So that TruthSeeker need not fear being banned, this is the thread to discuss the issue of whether eye-witnesses saw planes hitting the towers.

[DGM]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17074468acbb1c16fc.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6716)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17074468acbb1c16fc.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6716)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17074468acbb1c16fc.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6716)

[twinstead]

I'd like to see how may people claim that they saw the towers explode but no plane, and then compare that number to the number of people who saw with their own eyes a large aircraft impact the WTC.

Truthseeker, you could produce 10, 20, 100 people who didn't see a plane, but it would still be a tiny, tiny fraction of the eye-witness who did.

You cannot excape this fact. You can't hide from reality.

[Civilized Worm]

You can't hide from reality.


I don't know, he seems to be doing ok so far.

[PhantomWolf]

This guy (http://stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm) seems pretty sure there was a plane, and he was probably the closest person to it to still be alive so I'd say he's testimony is pretty conclusive on the matter.

"Suddenly I see this big gray airplane with red letters on the wing and tail filling my window," Praimnath says. "It’s coming right at me."

[twinstead]

I don't know, he seems to be doing ok so far.

Well, yea, but it's more like a child who simply closes his eyes standing in the open during a hide-and-seek game and thinks nobody can see him.

[twinstead]

This guy (http://stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm) seems pretty sure there was a plane, and he was probably the closest person to it to still be alive so I'd say he's testimony is pretty conclusive on the matter.

Sure, but he distinctly said "This building is going to blow up". That means he was in on the plot and totally unreliable.going to blow up,

[Alzke]

This guy (http://stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm) seems pretty sure there was a plane, and he was probably the closest person to it to still be alive so I'd say he's testimony is pretty conclusive on the matter.

Pretty conclusive huh? Why does your skepticism switch off when referencing a witness account that backs up your own position ? Do you think Prainmaths story is questionable? This is the guy that has done the rounds on the 700 club and claims the "power of prayer" caused the plane to bank and spare his life.

[DGM]

Pretty conclusive huh? Why does your skepticism switch off when referencing a witness account that backs up your own position ? Do you think Prainmaths story is questionable? This is the guy that has done the rounds on the 700 club and claims the "power of prayer" caused the plane to bank and spare his life.
Are you questioning him being on the 81st floor?

[PhantomWolf]

Pretty conclusive huh? Why does your skepticism switch off when referencing a witness account that backs up your own position ? Do you think Prainmaths story is questionable? This is the guy that has done the rounds on the 700 club and claims the "power of prayer" caused the plane to bank and spare his life.

How about because unlike Ace, Prainmath was there. Why would he say he saw a plane if he didn't?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Stanley Praimnath did say "This building is going to blow up". I do wonder why he said that.

He also says the plane was coming "right at" him. And that he could see "red letters on the wing". That's quite odd. I don't think there are any letters on the wing, red or otherwise. Nor could he see much of the wings except the leading edge if the plane was coming right at him.

Clearly he is a very religious man. He believes in God, and guardian angels, and evidently he believes he can hear the voices of angels, even though in this case it turned out to be another human.

I thought these sorts of beliefs automatically discredited a person in the view of JREF "skeptics". I have a relative by marriage who believes she hears the voices of angels. This is what led to her diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.

So perhaps Mr. Praimnath is delusional. Or, perhaps he is selling something. Let's have a look.

http://stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm

Yes, Mr. Praimnath is selling a book called "Plucked from the Fire", which is about his experience in the South Tower. Writers embellish stories all the time to make them more marketable.

Next.

[PhantomWolf]

So in other words Ace, anyone that disagrees with you is deluded and making stuff up?

[MG1962]

Next time you go on a plane - have a look. There is a lot of writing on the wings - Indicators for safe stepping, fuel loading points etc

[mortimer]

Next.

Yes, please go on. Explain in what way the thousands of other eyewitnesses are delusional.

Oh, and while you are at it, go ahead and present your witnesses who saw the building explode on the sides of the buildings where the alleged planes impacted who claim there wasn't a plane.

One last thing. Do you have anything to say to the friends and relatives of those who allegedly died on the 4 alleged planes?

[qarnos]

Pretty conclusive huh? Why does your skepticism switch off when referencing a witness account that backs up your own position ? Do you think Prainmaths story is questionable? This is the guy that has done the rounds on the 700 club and claims the "power of prayer" caused the plane to bank and spare his life.

Because his account is consistent with the evidence and the thousands of other people who saw planes fly into buildings.

Not a single person who was there has come forward to say there were no planes. I would think someone might have noticed.

[Reality Believer]

- snip - ....... paranoid schizophrenia.

So perhaps Mr. Praimnath is delusional. Or, perhaps he is selling something. Let's have a look.

Yes, Mr. Praimnath is selling a book called "Plucked from the Fire", which is about his experience in the South Tower. Writers embellish stories all the time to make them more marketable.

Next.

How about pointing those keen powers of analysis at anything Alex Jones says about this same subject. I'm sure you could come to the same conclusions.

[Arus808]

when is ace going to prove that my aunt and uncle didn't see flight 175 hit the south tower? they were there that day. was supposed to be at the WTC towers for sight seeing

[Corsair 115]

Yes, Mr. Praimnath is selling a book called "Plucked from the Fire", which is about his experience in the South Tower. Writers embellish stories all the time to make them more marketable.And what about Brian Clark, the man who rescued Mr. Praimnath from where he was trapped in the tower and was with him all the way down and out onto the streets for blocks? Is he lying too?

You can read an article recounting their stories just before the one-year anniversary of 9/11 here (http://www.ctv.ca/special/sept11/hubs/canadian/ctv_lopes_survivors.html). And lest you say their story only appeared then, it did not. The story was recounted shortly after 9/11 itself. I can recall seeing television reports about the pair.

But you need not trust my memory; here's (http://www.ctv.ca/special/sept11/hubs/archives/richer.html) a report detailing the two men's story originally published on Sept. 15, 2001, just four days after 9/11.

Or are you going to claim that Mr. Clark and The Globe & Mail newspaper (not to mention other Canadian newspapers and the CBC and CTV television networks) are in on the cover-up?

[mortimer]

There have been a number of twoofers come through this forum with their cockamamie ideas and "theories" of what happened. But I don't think I've ever been as disgusted as this. The thought of all those who died on the planes, those who were horrified as they sat and watched all of them die on impact, those on the impact floors who died instantly, and those who have the lasting scars of having faced death as those planes impacted nearby is moving and powerful. For someone like Ace to come here and accuse all of them of being in on a conspiracy is truly foul.

Ace, what happened to the passengers? What do you have to say to the grieving friends and relatives who were on those planes? Surely there's something you'd like to tell them.

[PhantomWolf]

Clark states that he didn't actually see the plane, but he and Stanley both say they saw wreckage and debris on the 81st floor. Stanley says about having to climb over parts of the plane, and having part of the wing imbeded in the wall of what had been his office. But of course Ace just goes ad hominem and calls anyone that dares to say they saw a plane, delusional.

[apathoid]

Third time: Where exactly were these no-plane witnesses?
Were they in position to have an unobstructed view of the impacts?

How many saw something like this?

qcuOapEyp1o


Would you say the above video supports your no plane theory Ace?

[Par]

Stanley Praimnath did say "This building is going to blow up". I do wonder why he said that.

He also says the plane was coming "right at" him. And that he could see "red letters on the wing". That's quite odd. I don't think there are any letters on the wing, red or otherwise. Nor could he see much of the wings except the leading edge if the plane was coming right at him.

Clearly he is a very religious man. He believes in God, and guardian angels, and evidently he believes he can hear the voices of angels, even though in this case it turned out to be another human.

I thought these sorts of beliefs automatically discredited a person in the view of JREF "skeptics". I have a relative by marriage who believes she hears the voices of angels. This is what led to her diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.

So perhaps Mr. Praimnath is delusional. Or, perhaps he is selling something. Let's have a look.

http://stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm

Yes, Mr. Praimnath is selling a book called "Plucked from the Fire", which is about his experience in the South Tower. Writers embellish stories all the time to make them more marketable.

Next.


Yet more attention-seeking crap. Regardless, it might be worth bearing in mind that Praimnath testified to having seen a plane hit the tower before having a book to sell. With regards to him being religious – don’t be so terribly silly.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Clearly he is a very religious man. He believes in God, and guardian angels, and evidently he believes he can hear the voices of angels, even though in this case it turned out to be another human.

I thought these sorts of beliefs automatically discredited a person in the view of JREF "skeptics". I have a relative by marriage who believes she hears the voices of angels. This is what led to her diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.

So perhaps Mr. Praimnath is delusional.

That's brilliant Ace. In a nation where 80% of the people self identify as christian, you want to prove your theories by tarring people of faith as mentally ill.

You keep pushing that strategy, buddy.

[The Doc]

Why are we giving him attention?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Why are we giving him attention?

Because it's emotionally satisfying to verbally beat down someone to whom we believe ourselves to be morally and intellectually superior.

Not to say that we aren't intellectually and morally superior to Ace, we most definitely are. It's just we seem to enjoy scratching that itch.

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, Mr. Baker?

What of the (likely) hundreds of thousands who witnessed the second airplane hit the south tower?

[Par]

Because it's emotionally satisfying to verbally beat down someone to whom we believe ourselves to be morally and intellectually superior.


Personally speaking, I see that sentiment as somewhat paradoxical. I would recommend not providing attention to those who clearly crave it.

[TruthSeeker1234]

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=154

[TruthSeeker1234]

That's brilliant Ace. In a nation where 80% of the people self identify as christian, you want to prove your theories by tarring people of faith as mentally ill.

You keep pushing that strategy, buddy.

I know you can read better than that!

I speculate that Praimnath might be delusional because he claims to hear voices of angels, not simply because he is Christian. I would offer the same speculation about anyone who claims to "hear voices of angels". I also speculate that Praimnath may simply have spiced up his narrative to make it more compelling.

[Arus808]

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=154


where was he? give us the exact location of this witness.

and you conveniently ignore the rebuttals in that thread:


We have someone saying "no second plane it was a bomb".

...and he is right because?

Have you ruled out the possibility he was mistaken?

Do we know where he was standing at the time and what he was focused on?

Someone's followed up his story... right?



the fact that you are using killtown as your source of the lie, proves yet again, you do not know what you are talking about

and that is only 1 person, who we can't even verify his statements with


Care to explain the 99,999 other witnesses?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Well, Mr. Baker?

What of the (likely) hundreds of thousands who witnessed the second airplane hit the south tower?

This is circular reasoning. You're saying, "We know there were planes, so hundreds of thousands must have witnessed them. Because hundreds of thousands witnessed them, that proves there were planes."

Let's look at documented cases of people going on record and reporting planes.

[Arus808]

This is circular reasoning. You're saying, "We know there were planes, so hundreds of thousands must have witnessed them. Because hundreds of thousands witnessed them, that proves there were planes."

this demonstrates that you do not know what circular reasoning is

Let's look at documented cases of people going on record and reporting planes.

which nearly all support that 175 (a plane) hit the south tower.

YOU can't escape that.

1 or 2 witnesses who says otherwise, out of a hundred doesn't prove that no plane hit.

You also have to consider the EVIDENCE of the planes wreckage found on and near , nearby buildings.


so, until you can prove what my aunt and uncle did see was a hoax, I will believe them OVER you and 1000 times on Sunday.

[jujigatami]

I was on the street with quite literally thousands of people and we ALL saw the second plane hit.

While I don't have an exact count, the streets were full of people looking at the north tower burning. FULL OF PEOPLE.

Now that I've posted here, its time for you to run away again Ace.

[SpitfireIX]

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=154


Ace, did it occur to you that some witnesses might not have been able to see the plane because they were on the opposite side of the tower from the impact??

[SpitfireIX]

I was on the street with quite literally thousands of people and we ALL saw the second plane hit.

While I don't have an exact count, the streets were full of people looking at the north tower burning. FULL OF PEOPLE.

Now that I've posted here, its time for you to run away again Ace.


Okay, Ace, is jujigatami lying, or merely delusional? Which is it, Ace? Or maybe everyone on the street there was fooled by a cruise missile painted in United Airlines livery. Please, enlighten us.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I was on the street with quite literally thousands of people and we ALL saw the second plane hit.

While I don't have an exact count, the streets were full of people looking at the north tower burning. FULL OF PEOPLE.

Now that I've posted here, its time for you to run away again Ace.

Are you willing to go on record and tell your story? Let's begin with your real name, and your location.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ace, did it occur to you that some witnesses might not have been able to see the plane because they were on the opposite side of the tower from the impact??

Sure. Like Alt+F4 for example. She was on the opposite side of the tower from the impact, but, strangely, she insists she saw the plane impact the tower.

[Daald]

I was on the M Train in Brooklyn observing the damage to the first tower when the second plane hit. I saw it as did the man right next to me.

Good thing you exist though otherwise I would have thought I was sane.

[Spins]

Are you willing to go on record and tell your story?He just told you (as he has done many times before) what he saw. There are also other people on this forum who saw the plane or know people who did. I know a guy (who also happens to be a pilot) on another forum who watched the second plane hit the South Tower, and he isn't the slightest bit interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Are they are ALL lying?

Ace, what's fake in this (http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/south_tower_hit.mpg) video?

[scissorhands]

I dont think that Ace believes a single word he is saying, he is enjoying the intellectual game of pulling peoples chains and the reaction gained (serial trolling).
Why he does this with a subject so emotive is anyones guess, but it appears he is a sociopath with no empathy for the feelings of anyone directly involved in those events.
He has already been indulged far more than necessary, its time to stop playing his game.:)

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ace, what's fake in this (http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/south_tower_hit.mpg) video?

Ah, Ghostplane. The money shot. This is a thread about the eyewitnesses.
But briefly, a major problem with this is that wings penetrate the wall, yet the wall remains unbroken. Search "magically healing columns" on this forum.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Also, who shot this video? Does anyone know? We have various different audio tracks to go with this one. Which is correct, if any?

[Arus808]

Search "magically healing columns" on this forum.

which was proven to be the case of someones wild imagination gone awry

[Arus808]

Also, who shot this video? Does anyone know? We have various different audio tracks to go with this one. Which is correct, if any?

why dont you get off your lazy butt and contact CNN. or did you not notice their SYMBOL / LOGO on the bottom of the screen? (im not saying CNN shot i,t but they got the video from the person who did. THEY HAVE TO make note of whom they get video from)

[TruthSeeker1234]

why dont you get off your lazy butt and contact CNN. or did you not notice their SYMBOL / LOGO on the bottom of the screen? (im not saying CNN shot i,t but they got the video from the person who did. THEY HAVE TO make note of whom they get video from)

In case you missed it, I (and many others) have contacted all the networks to obtain broadcast quality 9/11 videos, and info on camerapersons, etc.

You're right, they'd have to know who shot it.

8den says he can get footage for a fee. I've offered to pay the fee, and to compensate 8den for the trouble. I haven't heard back. I'll drop a note in his PM.

[Arus808]

In case you missed it, I (and many others) have contacted all the networks to obtain broadcast quality 9/11 videos, and info on camerapersons, etc.

yet you dont provide the contact person of whom you obtained said footage from.

seeing as that you post compressed video as what you use to investigate speaks highly of your deception and youre lies

8den says he can get footage for a fee. I've offered to pay the fee, and to compensate 8den for the trouble. I haven't heard back. I'll drop a note in his PM.


why should he help someone who actively is calling witnesses liars?

[Horatius]

Let's look at documented cases of people going on record and reporting planes.



Okay, lets.

Just from Googling "I saw the plane hit":


http://www.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/935
http://www.nabe.com/am2001/markstein.html
http://www.nabe.com/am2001/bernerstory.htm
http://www.nabe.com/am2001/greggst.htm
http://www.nabe.com/am2001/casey.pdf
http://www.nabe.com/am2001/stories.htm
http://www.splendidezine.com/features/minklungs/
http://www.goodcowfilms.com/farm/bas...09-11-2001.htm
http://gothamist.com/2006/09/11/where_were_you.php


And that's just for one search.

[Spins]

In case you missed it, I (and many others) have contacted all the networks to obtain broadcast quality 9/11 videos, and info on camerapersons, etc.

You're right, they'd have to know who shot it.

8den says he can get footage for a fee. I've offered to pay the fee, and to compensate 8den for the trouble. I haven't heard back. I'll drop a note in his PM.Ace, you give me the impression that you think only a handful of people have ever been verified as seeing the plane, you do agree that THOUSANDS of people saw the plane hit the South Tower?

Also you seem to be willing to spend a little cash on your research so I have an idea, why don't you go to New York and ask REAL people FACE-TO-FACE in the local area (shops, restaurants, businesses etc) if they saw the plane hit? Does that seem a sensible thing to do at all instead of wasting your life trying to prove ALL video of the planes hitting the Towers is fake?

[Dave Rogers]

Also you seem to be willing to spend a little cash on your research so I have an idea, why don't you go to New York and ask REAL people FACE-TO-FACE in the local area (shops, restaurants, businesses etc) if they saw the plane hit? Does that seem a sensible thing to do at all instead of wasting your life trying to prove ALL video of the planes hitting the Towers is fake?

In keeping with the forum rules, let me be the first to urge you not to follow up every affirmative reply with the question, "So are you lying, or just mistaken?" I'm sure there are many here who have an infinitely better sense than I of the temperament of New Yorkers, but even at my level of ignorance I'm given to suspect they might not take kindly to the implications.

Dave

[8den]

8den says he can get footage for a fee. I've offered to pay the fee, and to compensate 8den for the trouble. I haven't heard back. I'll drop a note in his PM.

And I've told you in public and via pm, I'm not wasting my time, scurring around picking up footage in order to pander to your fantasy. You want the footage you get it yourself.

[MRC_Hans]

I'd like to see how may people claim that they saw the towers explode but no plane, and then compare that number to the number of people who saw with their own eyes a large aircraft impact the WTC.

Truthseeker, you could produce 10, 20, 100 people who didn't see a plane, but it would still be a tiny, tiny fraction of the eye-witness who did.

You cannot excape this fact. You can't hide from reality.But there must be lots and lots of people not seing the plane, only the explosion. If you don't hear it coming (and NY is a noisy place), and you don't happen to be looking at the tower at the time (and even people staring at the towers after 1 was hit must have been looking away much of the time), what you will see IS a big explosion and no plane. Lots of people seeing only the explosion is totally to be expected, it doesn't in any way constitute evidence that there wasn't a plane.

One of those witnesses was a reporter, I don't know if he is among the ones TS cites, but he said on a video, something like "hey, I didn't see a plane, just a big explosion", and he is in that video, talking to somebody, and you see the plane fly in, hit, then as the explosion booms, he looks up. So yes, he only saw the explosion.

Hans

[Belz...]

This is circular reasoning. You're saying, "We know there were planes, so hundreds of thousands must have witnessed them. Because hundreds of thousands witnessed them, that proves there were planes."

Actually, that's not what he said.

Just the last part, Ace. Just the last part:

Because hundreds of thousands witnessed them, that proves there were planes

[Belz...]

Ah, Ghostplane. The money shot. This is a thread about the eyewitnesses.
But briefly, a major problem with this is that wings penetrate the wall, yet the wall remains unbroken. Search "magically healing columns" on this forum.

How the hell do you know that the wall is unbroken ? At the speed this is happening, how can you tell ? And please, don't tell me you froze the video and zoomed in.

[lapman]

Ah, Ghostplane. The money shot. This is a thread about the eyewitnesses.
But briefly, a major problem with this is that wings penetrate the wall, yet the wall remains unbroken. Search "magically healing columns" on this forum.
http://img160.exs.cx/img160/92/womanwtc22dk.png

Yeah, no damage to the wall there.

[jujigatami]

Are you willing to go on record and tell your story? Let's begin with your real name, and your location.

Go on record to who? I've posted my story here before. I live in Maplewood NJ and used to work at 45 Broadway on 9/11. I'm not going to openly put my name on this or any forum because I'm afraid of some nutty "truthseeker" harassing my family.

I've already revealed my name, address, and proof that I worked a few short blocks from the WTC to Gravy, who verified it when he used some of my story in his WTC7 paper. I'm sure he'll confirm this to you.

But I'm also more than willing to "go on record" to others too, whatever that means.

[jujigatami]

Here's a link to my original post about what I saw:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160

You are welcome to ask any questions you want.

[Loss Leader]

I dont think that Ace believes a single word he is saying, he is enjoying the intellectual game of pulling peoples chains and the reaction gained (serial trolling).


No, Ace really is a true believer. His insane obsession has actually caused him personal and professional difficulties. It had strained his relationship with his brother-in-law, who won't even discuss the matter with him anymore. And he only really composes with one director in Hollywood, John Putch. If Putch isn't directing, it's pretty likely that Ace isn't working.

All in all, his life would improve in every way if he were able to get help for his obsessive disorder.

[pomeroo]

http://img160.exs.cx/img160/92/womanwtc22dk.png

Yeah, no damage to the wall there.



This photo is food for thought. I used to have an extremely poor opinion of Ace's intelligence. But, I have to admit that, apart from the extremely clear outline of a large plane and the imprint of the wings that sliced through the external columns, no one would ever guess that a commercial airliner flew into this building. I mean, excepting the heavy damage that is obvious to everyone, there is no damage at all.

[TruthSeeker1234]

This photo is food for thought. I used to have an extremely poor opinion of Ace's intelligence. But, I have to admit that, apart from the extremely clear outline of a large plane and the imprint of the wings that sliced through the external columns, no one would ever guess that a commercial airliner flew into this building. I mean, apart from the heavy damage that is obvious to everyone, there is no damage at all.

We've been through this. Of course there was a plane shaped hole in the wall. The problem is this occurred sometime well after the "plane" went in.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3995/4108/400/impact.1.jpg

[pomeroo]

We've been through this. Of course there was a plane shaped hole in the wall. The problem is this occurred sometime well after the "plane" went in.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3995/4108/400/impact.1.jpg



Sure it did, Ace.

Someone, possibly a cartoon animator, created the plane-shaped hole.

I know three people who watched the plane hit.

They think you're seriously ill.

Why not call Fox News in NYC and ask them about your fantasy?

[pomeroo]

We've been through this. Of course there was a plane shaped hole in the wall. The problem is this occurred sometime well after the "plane" went in.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3995/4108/400/impact.1.jpg



Uh, Ace, we get the idea that you are dull-witted. But, you have chosen to post a photo of the plane BEFORE it hit the building.

What possible point can you be trying to make?

[TruthSeeker1234]

But, you have chosen to post a photo of the plane BEFORE it hit the building.


Before it hit the building?? LOL. That's not the correct unpaid gubmint shill answer. The correct unpaid gubmint shill answer is that the resolution of the picture is too poor to tell anything. I can certainly prove that this frame is after the "impact" and after the "wings" have gone into the building. The engines are inside, and we see two puffs of smoke where they were, the nose of the plane is disappeared, we've already had the bright flash (which is supposedly friction or static from the nose hitting), etc.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3995/4108/400/impact.1.jpg

[pomeroo]

Before it hit the building?? LOL. That's not the correct unpaid gubmint shill answer. The correct unpaid gubmint shill answer is that the resolution of the picture is too poor to tell anything. I can certainly prove that this frame is after the "impact" and after the "wings" have gone into the building. The engines are inside, and we see two puffs of smoke where they were, the nose of the plane is disappeared, we've already had the bright flash (which is supposedly friction or static from the nose hitting), etc.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3995/4108/400/impact.1.jpg



No, Ace, for those of us who are sane, the photo shows the plane as it is about to crash into the building.

You can certainly "prove" many things that exist solely in your imagination. But, then, we all know why you can.

The hole created by the plane wasn't faked, Ace. That historic event occurred in the reality most of us inhabit. If you were vastly smarter than you are, your best efforts to create an alternate reality would still fail. Too many people actually saw the plane hit.

[Par]

To anyone sane, that picture looks like a plane crashing into a building; the result of the impact is depicted by the photograph posted by lapman.

[Arus808]

We've been through this. Of course there was a plane shaped hole in the wall. The problem is this occurred sometime well after the "plane" went in.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3995/4108/400/impact.1.jpg


ace you are truly being dishonest.

first that pic is of the plane before striking the tower

and any subsequent images following had FIRE AND SMOKE obscuring, for nearly 5 minutes after impact. so of course no "hole" is immediately seen after impact.

jezus H christopera ... how can you be so dishonest and look at yourself in the mirror each day

[jujigatami]

Funny,

That picture matches almost exactly what I saw on 9/11. It also matches the hole almost perfectly.

Ace's point is what exactly?

[TruthSeeker1234]

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/BeforeImpact-.gif

[DGM]

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/BeforeImpact-.gif
I know you don't care, But do we really need to go though this again. PEOPLE ARE DIEING IN THESE PICTURES. Including a friend of mine.

[Spins]

Ok then Ace what do you think should have happened, remember we are talking about a plane travelling at ~500mph and fractions of a second.

Are you saying the instant the plane hit the building you should have already seen a gaping hole around the plane?

[Parsman]

Is it just me or does the video Ace posted look like it is frozen at a point where the nose and front fuselage of the plane has penetrated the building but the wings have yet to impact and start to cut through the walls? Since this is what actually happened, why is he posting this?

[Arus808]

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/BeforeImpact-.gif

um, because the plane hasn't really gone through yet. why do you expect a hole when the wings haven't even penetrated the building (the only hole that would be created would be done by the 10 foot nose cone) which is obstructed by the rest of the plane

yet again, aCe you fail at trying to prove your claim

why dont YOU post the entire video clip instead of freeze framing on only the "nose" entering the building (which the damage can't be seen at that angle)

[TruthSeeker1234]

um, because the plane hasn't really gone through yet. why do you expect a hole when the wings haven't even penetrated the building (the only hole that would be created would be done by the 10 foot nose cone) which is obstructed by the rest of the plane


http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/BeforeImpact-.gif

[TruthSeeker1234]

Is it just me or does the video Ace posted look like it is frozen at a point where the nose and front fuselage of the plane has penetrated the building but the wings have yet to impact and start to cut through the walls?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/BeforeImpact-.gif

Do not continue to post the same image over and over. Once should be more than sufficient.

[Arus808]

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/BeforeImpact-.gif

and again youre showing a animated gif (with missing frames) of a pre-impact situation.

it doesn't prove anything you claim.

the angle of the shot, the foreshortening of the plane.

AGAIN, this proves NOTHING, ace.

reposting the image again, for two replies in a row, is SPAM since you didn't even bother comment.

[Pardalis]

I know you don't care, But do we really need to go though this again. PEOPLE ARE DIEING IN THESE PICTURES. Including a friend of mine.

QFE

Ace, have you got no heart?

Why do you keep posting that image? We could see it just fine the first time.

[pomeroo]

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/BeforeImpact-.gif



Congratulations! You have finally come to terms with your crippling illness. Yes, you have shown the plane entering the building. This event actually happened. Real people died horribly on that plane and in that building. It is wrong for you to trivialize their deaths with your preposterous fantasies, even though you are not responsible for your actions.

Parsman, Arus808, and everyone else on this forum have noticed that your video shows the precise moment the plane impacts the building. Let us be very clear: The plane has just made contact with the building. If we continued the video, we would, of course, see the explosion immediately thereafter. That is the exact sequence of events observed by thousands from the street below and their office windows.

But, then, you already know that.

So, at last we are all on the same page: Plane hits building> Explosion > Smoke and Fire> Voila! We see the hole in the photo posted by lapman.

Thus, we finally bring down the curtain on the dumbest fabrication concocted by a truly evil movement.

[pomeroo]

um, because the plane hasn't really gone through yet. why do you expect a hole when the wings haven't even penetrated the building (the only hole that would be created would be done by the 10 foot nose cone) which is obstructed by the rest of the plane

yet again, aCe you fail at trying to prove your claim

why dont YOU post the entire video clip instead of freeze framing on only the "nose" entering the building (which the damage can't be seen at that angle)



Ace is so inept he can't even post a misleading video. The left wing is starting to slice through the exterior columns.

[Pardalis]

The left wing is starting to slice through the exterior columns.

Now don't you start derailing this into politics again. :p

[pomeroo]

Now don't you start derailing this into politics again. :p



Not bad--not bad at all. ;)

[Corsair 115]

We forgot to ask the most important question about that little animated clip TS posted: so is that video a fake, TS? That would have to be your position, given that you claim the video from the helicopter, which shows the same event from a different angle, is a fake. So. how'd they do this fake, TS? Another real-time superimposing of a pre-filmed jet over a shot of the tower? Or something else?

[TruthSeeker1234]

and again youre showing a animated gif (with missing frames) of a pre-impact situation.



There are no frames missing in between the frames in the gif.

Clearly, those like Pomeroo and Arus are flat wrong about the images. In the preceding frames, we can easily see the nose of the aircraft, and in the freeze frame, it is not present. We can easily see the engines, and they are not present. We can easily see the wings, and they are not present, except for the tips (which are further back than the rest of the wings).

We are 3/10 of a second past initial impact, yet the big plane-shaped hole has yet to appear. In particular, the area between the fuselage and the wingtips should be a gaping hole at this point in time. I've already shown that there is 10 times enough resolution to see such a hole, if it were present.


The kindly folks at Purdue say the gaping hole would already be present. See?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/PurdueFrame.jpg

[TruthSeeker1234]

So. how'd they do this fake, TS? Another real-time superimposing of a pre-filmed jet over a shot of the tower? Or something else?

Not composited in real time, Ghostplane emerged later. As I have said, I suspect they recorded the same one real airplane flight from many angles, but I don't rule out the possibility of CGI.

Who shot ghostplane?

This is one of the most famous historical videos of all time, right up there with the Zapruder film, and nobody takes credit for it? Odd to say the least.

[pomeroo]

There are no frames missing in between the frames in the gif.

Clearly, those like Pomeroo and Arus are flat wrong about the images.



No, Ace: Your mad fantasy is stone-cold dead. You are exposed for the world to see.



[quote=TruthSeeker1234;2747798]
In the preceding frames, we can easily see the nose of the aircraft, and in the freeze frame, it is not present. We can easily see the engines, and they are not present. We can easily see the wings, and they are not present, except for the tips (which are further back than the rest of the wings).

We are 3/10 of a second past initial impact, yet the big plane-shaped hole has yet to appear. In particular, the area between the fuselage and the wingtips should be a gaping hole at this point in time. I've already shown that there is 10 times enough resolution to see such a hole, if it were present.





Babble on, Ace: IT'S OVER.

YOU'RE DONE.

FINISHED.


[quote=TruthSeeker1234;2747798]
The kindly folks at Purdue say the gaping hole would already be present. See?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/PurdueFrame.jpg



No lies can save you, Ace. The plane is entering the building. The explosion occurs very soon. The hole will be visible as soon as the smoke clears.

IT'S OVER, ACE.

Get the help you need.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Oh but you don't understand Ron. The kindly folks at Purdue say that their animation is based on their finite element analysis. Now, just between you and me, I think their animation is total fiction. But, I suppose you guys have to support it.

Notice how the hole has already appeared between the fuselage and wingtip. Of course! How could the beams still be in place after the wing has passed? They couldn't, and the animators at Purdue agree with me. Unfortunately, they disagree with the Ghostplane video.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3995/4108/400/impact.1.jpg

(Calm down Ron, your desperation could not be more obvious).

[Loss Leader]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3995/4108/400/impact.1.jpg



I'm not exactly on the starting team when it comes to 9/11 but I'm gonna give this a shot and say digital compression.

The plane is gray. The building is gray. The smoke is gray. Then, of course, you have the problem of pixels - parts of the plane and the building could be converged in one pixel as could the building and the smoke (and the plane and the smoke). This would cause the computer to just average the colors for that pixel into a nice, even gray.

I think the computer that compressed the video got confused and colored the whole thing one indistinct mass of gray.

Can we go home now?

Oh, I forgot. I am home. Unlike the people on Flight 175. They're dead.

[TruthSeeker1234]

[quote]


The plane is entering the building. The explosion occurs very soon. The hole will be visible as soon as the smoke clears.




But, you have chosen to post a photo of the plane BEFORE it hit the building.

Well, which is it? Is the plane "entering the building", or is it "BEFORE it hit the building" ?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3995/4108/400/impact.1.jpg

[TruthSeeker1234]

And don't we think it's odd that none of the videos continue past the explosion? Why not? I can't find any videos at all that show the gaping hole right after the plane hit. Why not?

Yes, the building is grey, but the gaping hole is much, much darker. We could see the gaping hole with 1/10 the resolution.

See? Here is a gif, the final frame showing the hole was a photograph taken some time after the "plane" hit. We can see the dark hole with no problem.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HealingColumns.gif

[Unsecured Coins]

you're showing me a picture of a plane flying into a building and telling me it's not a pic of a plane flying into a building.

That's funny. I didn't know they put wings on water buffalo

[A W Smith]

Truthseeker the "gaping Hole" as you call it in the Purdue animation is where the puffs from the engines would be in your Giff. Of course the puffs are absent in the Purdue animation. Don't you feel foolish now? No of course you don't because you are ill. Again I feel sorry, Not for you. But for your family. Get professional help.

[Redtail]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about how no one really saw the plane hit the building?

[WildCat]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about how no one really saw the plane hit the building?
Pj6qv1iZJWo

[Loss Leader]

Yes, the building is grey, but the gaping hole is much, much darker. We could see the gaping hole with 1/10 the resolution.

See? Here is a gif, the final frame showing the hole was a photograph taken some time after the "plane" hit. We can see the dark hole with no problem.



So, you're showing me a video still of the plane at the instant it entered the building and then you're showing me a frame "some time after" the plane hit and you're arguing that they should show the same thing?

1. The plane was moving in the first image. I don't know how far it moved in that one frame but I know that the image taken "some time after" does not contain a moving airplane.

2. There is no reason to think that the digital compression on the video and the digital compression on the still picture taken "some time after" worked in anything like the same manner so that they could be compared.

3. "Some time after" the plane hit, the offices were on fire and the carpet, furniture and computers were producing black smoke. There is no reason to believe that this smoke would be the same color as that initially created by the plane's impact. Darker smoke means that the hole in the building would be easier to distinguish from the gray outside of the building.

4. You are a coward who lacks the courage of your convictions. If you honestly believed any word of what you write, you would contact the Holy Cross Church in Easton, Massachusetts and let them know your findings. Mail can be sent to 225 Purchase Street, South Easton, MA 02375 or you can call 508-238-2235. You can fax your report to 508-238-0500 or email it to info@holycrosseaston.org The parishoners at Holy Cross are under the impression that their church leader, Rev. Francis Grogan, died on September 11, 2001 when his plane, United Flight 175, was hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center. If you believe in what you have written, you should have no trouble letting them know that their friend and mentor did not die in this manner.

5. Do I really need a five?

[pomeroo]

[quote=TruthSeeker1234;2747898]Oh but you don't understand Ron.


Of course I don't, Ace. Mine is a pedestrian intellect, bound to mere facts. Your majestic mind, unburdened of reason, logic, and knowledge, soars into the empyrean.



][quote=TruthSeeker1234;2747898]
The kindly folks at Purdue say that their animation is based on their finite element analysis. Now, just between you and me, I think their animation is total fiction.



Well, Ace, the problem is, they're real scientists and you're an ineducable dunce.





But, I suppose you guys have to support it.




As rationalists, all we have to do is follow where the evidence leads. You, on the other hand, are a slave to your madness.


][quote=TruthSeeker1234;2747898]
Notice how the hole has already appeared between the fuselage and wingtip. Of course! How could the beams still be in place after the wing has passed? They couldn't, and the animators at Purdue agree with me. Unfortunately, they disagree with the Ghostplane video.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3995/4108/400/impact.1.jpg




No, Ace, your deception will fool no one. We all get the idea that the beams will appear to be in place for whatever fraction of a second it takes for the damage to show (think of a swordsman cutting a candle with his blade). I'm afraid there is no "ghostplane." It's just another nonsensical lie invented by sick people to advance their evil agenda. But thousands of people saw the real plane hit the building. That hole in the building: yup, it's real, too. You can't lie it out of existence.

The reason the photo makes it look like a plane hit the building is-listen carefully--a plane really did hit the building. Thousands of people saw it. They know you're crazy, Ace. No matter how you twist and turn, you can't trick them all.

And no matter how many lies you tell, no matter what fantastic idiocy you fabricate, you always lose. You can never persuade the witnesses that they're either lying or hallucinating. You can never stand reality on its head, try as you might.


][quote=TruthSeeker1234;2747898]
(Calm down Ron, your desperation could not be more obvious).


Yes, I suppose your most recent humiliation--this one crafted by yourself--should engender desperation in the people who have trounced you again and crushed your insane fantasies. But, you know what?--I don't buy it!

It's all over, Ace. You've been exposed. Get the help you need.

[pomeroo]

[quote=pomeroo;2747830]




Well, which is it? Is the plane "entering the building", or is it "BEFORE it hit the building" ?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3995/4108/400/impact.1.jpg



Gee, you pose tough questions, Ace.

I'd have to say the photo shows the plane right at the moment it's entering the building.

You're done. It's all over, Ace. Get help.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'll let you all in on a little secret. When you guys get so desperate and say ridiculous things like . . .

this is "a photo of the plane BEFORE it hit the building"

or

that the puffs of smoke are covering up where the hole would be

or

"the core was only braced by the main floor assemblies"


. . . it is like a compass, or a homing beacon. It points the way toward the most transparent parts of your fiction.

[Pardalis]

Either Ace is pulling our leg, which is lame and insults the memory of the victims, or he's genuinely insane and really believes what he says, and it would be pointless trying to discuss with a madman.

Either way, please ignore him.

[Unsecured Coins]

well, Ace, would you care to share with the rest of the class what made those BIG HONKING HOLES in the Towers if it wasn't real planes?

[TruthSeeker1234]

[quote]

Gee, you pose tough questions, Ace.

I'd have to say the photo shows the plane right at the moment it's entering the building.

You're done. It's all over, Ace. Get help.

LOL. What's a "moment" ? First you said it was "before". Now you say it's "right at the moment".

Look, the "plane" takes 6 frames to enter the building. That's at least 6 "moments". LOL. Ronald.

[TruthSeeker1234]

well, Ace, would you care to share with the rest of the class what made those BIG HONKING HOLES in the Towers if it wasn't real planes?

We don't know what made them, my low riffing friend. If the networks would release the videos, perhaps we could watch what happens after the "plane" hits and see. Don't you think it's odd that none of the videos goes on past the explosion? Why do they all cut out so fast? What do you suppose they're hiding? What was in the Naudet video of the 2nd strike, you know, where all those frames were taken out?

[Unsecured Coins]

I didn't think you could, Ace. If you would actually ask the networks these questions instead of harping about it on the internet you might find out the answers.

Know what I find odd? That you can look at someone who saw that plane hit with their own two naked, unfettered, unbiased eyes. and tell them that what they saw didn't happen.

Dmin9 --> G13 --> Cmaj9

[firecoins]

Truthseeker123, I have tried to look at your explaination with objectivity and I find it has no basis in reality. Sorry. I know dozens of witnesses as I live in the NY area. They all claim to have seen a 2nd plane hit the WTC. I have seen video of the 2nd plane from several different angles. You got nothing. You have failed to present anything substitive that would convince me something other than the official explaination took place. Extroidanary claims require extroidanary evidence. You don't meet the requirements.

[DavidJames]

4. You are a coward who lacks the courage of your convictions. If you honestly believed any word of what you write, you would contact the Holy Cross Church in Easton, Massachusetts and let them know your findings. Mail can be sent to 225 Purchase Street, South Easton, MA 02375 or you can call 508-238-2235. You can fax your report to 508-238-0500 or email it to info@holycrosseaston.org The parishoners at Holy Cross are under the impression that their church leader, Rev. Francis Grogan, died on September 11, 2001 when his plane, United Flight 175, was hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center. If you believe in what you have written, you should have no trouble letting them know that their friend and mentor did not die in this manner.Notice that Ace didn't respond to this.

[LashL]

See? Here is a gif, the final frame showing the hole was a photograph taken some time after the "plane" hit. We can see the dark hole with no problem.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HealingColumns.gif

Just when I thought that I had seen the depths of depravity to which some troofers will sink, along comes "Ace Baker" to produce an animated gif that distorts reality while depicting the deaths of dozens of real, live, human beings within a few short seconds, (read that again, Ace, slowly) and he apparently likes his own dishonest handiwork so much that he emblazons his personal (plagiarized) logo on it at the end to take "credit" for having sunk to such loathsome depths.

How utterly, hopelessly, disgustingly despicable.

[Corsair 115]

As I have said, I suspect they recorded the same one real airplane flight from many angles, but I don't rule out the possibility of CGI.What then caused the explosion in the building? What caused the holes in the exterior columns?

[simakperrce]

Ace, when you look in the mirror in the morning, do you sometimes wonder whether you are real, a CGI-rendering or pre-recorded footage?

Maybe you should expand your theory to include the possibility that not only were there no planes, but that there is no Ace Baker either.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Dmin9 --> G13 --> Cmaj9

A standard jazz cadence. 2-5-1. What Frank Zappa called "The essence of bad white person music". I love Zappa, but there's nothing wrong with good ol' 2-5-1, especially in the key of C, gosh there aren't even any black notes.

Please don't try that chord progression with your drop B Les Paul, or any jazz chords at all, or I'll have to have you arrested.

[TruthSeeker1234]

What then caused the explosion in the building? What caused the holes in the exterior columns?

Explosives of some sort. Could have been a missile, which was literally covered up by the fake planes, or, explosives in the building, or ???

I'm sure the big fireball was some sort of hollywood style pyrotechnic show off, but as to what broke the columns and caused those white clouds . . .

Good question.

Looks like it might be the same or similar to what eventually caused almost the whole building to turn to white dust clouds.

[Arus808]

There are no frames missing in between the frames in the gif.

ace, there is frames missing. you can't put a 30 fps animated gif online without it being huge. 30 fps for a 10 second clip that's 300 frames.

ace, youre again being dishonest

Clearly, those like Pomeroo and Arus are flat wrong about the images.

No we arent. agian you are ignoring that'
1) the film is shot at an angle, meaning that there is foreshortening taking place on the plane as it enters the building

2) YOU ENDED the clip just as the plane is hitting. the damage occuring at that moment is from the nose cone, blcoked by the plane because of the angle, so it looks "odd".

3) the wings haven't even entered the building yet


anyone who has taken photography 101 could easily explain to you why whaty ou are trying to claim is from someone who has never understood how cameras works, especially if they are ZOOMED in on a subject.

before you go further with your outright bullcrap. I suggest you take a course in photogrpahy. It'll give you a basic understanding of video. I took a basic photography class when i was 13 years old. And even I know what foreshortening is, which is why the plane looks like its "shorter" just at the beginning of impact.

[Arus808]

And this will be the last time i even engage someone who is mocking the experiences of my Uncle and Aunt who were there that day to witness the horror of 2700 people who died at Ground Zero

Ace, is truly delusional and disturbed and that he continues to mock the victims and posts lies about 175 truly shows what kind of despicable, disgusting, callous, insensitive POS he really is.

He is joining skepticalcritcalguy as the 2nd person who is now on my ignore list.


I suggest that everyone else do the same. Even those kooks on myspace who continue to spread the lies of 911 Truth, dont believe in this crap theory.


Until ACe rescinds his asinine theory and makes a public apology to EVERY SINGLE person he has insulted, he is no longer worth debating. He has insulted my aunt and uncle, by basically calling them liars. If they had arrived 20 minutes earlier, they would have been in North Tower and amongst those who would have died that day.


IGNORE and move on

[Par]

Oh, for ****s sake, just ignore him.

[Loss Leader]

Explosives of some sort. Could have been a missile, which was literally covered up by the fake planes, or, explosives in the building, or ???


You've ignored my answer to you as to why the comparison between a video frame and a still picture is unreliable.

I'll reprint it incase you missed it:

So, you're showing me a video still of the plane at the instant it entered the building and then you're showing me a frame "some time after" the plane hit and you're arguing that they should show the same thing?

1. The plane was moving in the first image. I don't know how far it moved in that one frame but I know that the image taken "some time after" does not contain a moving airplane.

2. There is no reason to think that the digital compression on the video and the digital compression on the still picture taken "some time after" worked in anything like the same manner so that they could be compared.

3. "Some time after" the plane hit, the offices were on fire and the carpet, furniture and computers were producing black smoke. There is no reason to believe that this smoke would be the same color as that initially created by the plane's impact. Darker smoke means that the hole in the building would be easier to distinguish from the gray outside of the building.

4. You are a coward who lacks the courage of your convictions. If you honestly believed any word of what you write, you would contact the Holy Cross Church in Easton, Massachusetts and let them know your findings. Mail can be sent to 225 Purchase Street, South Easton, MA 02375 or you can call 508-238-2235. You can fax your report to 508-238-0500 or email it to info@holycrosseaston.org The parishoners at Holy Cross are under the impression that their church leader, Rev. Francis Grogan, died on September 11, 2001 when his plane, United Flight 175, was hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center. If you believe in what you have written, you should have no trouble letting them know that their friend and mentor did not die in this manner.

5. Do I really need a five?

[Unsecured Coins]

Please don't try that chord progression with your drop B Les Paul, or any jazz chords at all, or I'll have to have you arrested.


I have my 335 for that. Good day, sir

[TruthSeeker1234]

Reporter Don Dahler was on the scene, and evidently he didn't see or hear a 767. The sound of a 767 at full throttle would be impossible to miss for anyone on the scene.

*[GIBSON: Absolutely, no indication that this could have been related to that. Right. Don Dahler--ABC's Don Dahler, who is on the scene--Don, just give me some description again of what you're--what you can see now.]
DAHLER: Well, we see--it appears that there is more and more fire and smoke enveloping the very top of the building, and as fire crews are descending on this area, it--it does not appear that there's any kind of an effort up there yet, now remember--Oh, my God!
GIBSON: That looks like a second plane has just hit ...
DAHLER: I didn't see a plane go in. That--that just exploded. I...
GIBSON: We just saw another plane coming in from the side.
DAHLER: You did? I was--that was obscured from my view.
GIBSON: That second explosion, you could see the plane come in just from the right-hand side of the screen...

[Corsair 115]

Could have been a missile... Missiles leave very visible white smoke trails, very easy to spot. Where's the smoke trail?

I'm sure the big fireball was some sort of hollywood style pyrotechnic show off, but as to what broke the columns and caused those white clouds . . . So you admit that your theory is half-baked because there are critical components to it that you cannot answer?


By the way, I've got a theory of my own, and I feel it's evidence is very compelling: you wouldn't be able to recognize a special effects shot even if the folks at ILM itself came over, sat down beside you, and explained which shot is a special effect and how it was done. No, not even then could you tell which shot is a special effect.

Sorry, TS, but face it, your eyes are terrible at it.

[Alareth]

So perhaps Mr. Praimnath is delusional.

Easy there Ace, you're projecting.

[Alareth]

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HealingColumns.gif

Of all the little clips and pictures Ace likes to post here, that one disgusts be more than any other. Bad enough we get to see innocent people dying on an enless loop, but the "By Ace Baker" credit is one of the most cruel and insensitive things imaginable.

[pomeroo]

Of all the little clips and pictures Ace likes to post here, that one disgusts be more than any other. Bad enough we get to see innocent people dying on an enless loop, but the "By Ace Baker" credit is one of the most cruel and insensitive things imaginable.



Ace Baker has been shown to be ignorant and unintelligent, a pretty fair description of the bulk of humanity. But Ace adds to the mix a sneering viciousness that absolutely revels in producing the sort of sensations people of normal sensibilities associate with watching a small dog get hit by a car. What motivates him?

Here is an excerpt from a new book, Your Worst Poker Enemy, by Alan N. Schoonmaker, a practicing psychologist. From the chapter headed, "Vicious Customers":

"Ignoring motives is foolish because we can cope more effectively with people when we understand the forces that drive them. So, why do they do it? The answer to my question is quite simple: they are nasty because it pays off. Most of the rewards are psychological, but a few of them are financial.

"When they hear that, some people get angry. 'What do you mean, it pays off? It really costs him. He chases away weak players and ruins the game. He makes everybody angry. He doesn't have a friend in the whole place.' These answers are examples of 'the egoistic fallacy' [the belief that other people think and feel just the way we do]."

"Many people egoistically assume that vicious people have the same motives they have. Since they want people to like them, they assume that everybody wants to be liked. Since they want weak players to stick around, they think everybody would want them in their games. But vicious people's motives are often quite different. Most behavior is driven by a variety of motives, and hardly anyone has all the ones I will list, but here are a few of their motives:

"First, they may get a big kick out of making people angry. You and I may want people to like us, but they may crave a different kind of attention. The research on 'problem children' shows that they want people to yell at, or even to hit them. We would regard these actions as punishments, but for some people they are rewards. They learned as young children that they could get extra attention and manipulate their parents and other people by throwing tantrums, swearing, hitting or biting people, and so on."

"Second, they get relief, perhaps even pleasure, just from being nasty. Everybody occasionally has so much pressure inside them that they need the relief of expressing it. Vicious people may have more pressure than they can handle and expressing their tensions makes them feel better. If you notice and react, you have essentially validated their feelings, even if you react negatively. You have given them the satisfaction of both expressing their feelings and making you share their misery..."

[TruthSeeker1234]

Missiles leave very visible white smoke trails, very easy to spot. Where's the smoke trail?

Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6426448540988365398&q=cruise+missile&total=244&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) are several clips of cruise missiles not leaving visible smoke trails (after the boost phase).

Not that I'm sold on the missile theory. We don't know what hit the towers, and we don't know exactly how they were blown up. We do know that the plane videos are provably fake, and the towers were blown to dust.

[Rolfe]

I still don't understand the point of the argument. If that video is faked, by somebody trying to support the false account that a plane entered WTC2, and if the fakery is so easy to spot - why did they do it? Why didn't they put in the effort to make it credible?

Rolfe.

PS. Looks like the sort of odd effect you get with fast moving subjects and poor resolution, to me.

[realitybites]

Explosives of some sort. Could have been a missile, which was literally covered up by the fake planes, or, explosives in the building, or ???

I'm sure the big fireball was some sort of hollywood style pyrotechnic show off, but as to what broke the columns and caused those white clouds . . .

Good question.

Looks like it might be the same or similar to what eventually caused almost the whole building to turn to white dust clouds.

This is where you truthers really start to disgust me....

If you spent a fraction of the time you spend on making looping GIFs of people dying on actually trying to discover the answers to your own questions, I might be a touch more understanding of your mental condition.

But you don't. We're coming up on six years and you're still asking the same questions, making the same ridiculous arguments.

I guess pissing on graves holds more allure than actually tracking down that elusive truth you all claim you're on about.

[TruthSeeker1234]

This is where you truthers really start to disgust me....

If you spent a fraction of the time you spend on making looping GIFs of people dying on actually trying to discover the answers to your own questions, I might be a touch more understanding of your mental condition.

But you don't. We're coming up on six years and you're still asking the same questions, making the same ridiculous arguments.

I guess pissing on graves holds more allure than actually tracking down that elusive truth you all claim you're on about.

That's just not true RB. For examples of new material, I suggest September Clues, part 6 (http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice), just out. My velocity study (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Chopper5Velocity2.html) is new. There's a conference (http://911scholars.org/) in a few weeks in Madison Wisconsin, where several researchers will be presenting. Dr. Wood has expanded her thesis (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt3.html).

Now, to the extent that our research is slow, perhaps releasing all the videos and photos would help.

Join me in my call for the networks to release broadcast quality copies of significant 9/11 videos for research purposes. If the "anomalies" are really just compression artifacts and poor resolution, seems that OCTs would support this.

Why is it then, that it is the truth movement who are requesting the release of the videos?

[Corsair 115]

Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6426448540988365398&q=cruise+missile&total=244&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) are several clips of cruise missiles not leaving visible smoke trails (after the boost phase).Heh, I was waiting for you to bring up the cruise missile. Those really aren't missiles in the traditional sense, they're more like small, pilotless jets.

Normal missiles use rocket engines, mostly burning solid fuels, which leave very visible smoke trails and which accelerate the missile to very high speeds, typically over Mach 1. Air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles in particular travel very fast, over Mach 2 in most cases.

Cruise missiles like the Harpoon or Tomahawk are different. They only use a rocket motor for the initial launch; after that, they use a small jet engine to provide propulsion. This means they don't fly supersonic; their speed is about 550 MPH.

That relatively slow speed compared to other missiles means they can be spotted visually, without that much trouble. They are also quite distinctive in appearance, looking very much like a flying torpedo. Even the most aeronautically challenged person in the world would never confuse a Tomahawk with a 757 or 767.

So what are we left with? A missile which flies no faster than the jetliners which crashed into the towers, which means this supposed missile of yours would have been spotted by eyewitnesses too. And recorded on the multitude of video and still cameras present in the area that day.

A Mach 2 missile would stand a much better chance of hitting the towers without been seen by people, but the problem there is the smoke trail it would have left behind, which folks would spot easily.

Result: your theory is sunk.

[Corsair 115]

Why is it then, that it is the truth movement who are requesting the release of the videos?Because, to be quite blunt, you're the ones having trouble with reality. The rest of us, who have eyes and ears and rational thinking capabilties, do not have this problem with reality and don't see special effects where there are none. Those who watched the events as they were carried live on television, or those who actually saw them in person, have no problem in understanding that the events were exactly what they appeared to be: aircraft smashing into buildings, causing sufficient damage and fire as to cause their eventual collapse.

No grand conspiracies, no impossible space beams, no secret demolition teams needed. Just kinetic energy and combustion of flammable materials and time, that's all that was needed.

[Horatius]

Dmin9 --> G13 --> Cmaj9



Can we just assume that was some killer musician insult?


ETA: Okay, I guess it was! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2748138#post2748138)

[realitybites]

That's just not true RB. For examples of new material, I suggest September Clues, part 6 (http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice), just out. My velocity study (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Chopper5Velocity2.html) is new. There's a conference (http://911scholars.org/) in a few weeks in Madison Wisconsin, where several researchers will be presenting. Dr. Wood has expanded her thesis (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt3.html).

Now, to the extent that our research is slow, perhaps releasing all the videos and photos would help.

Join me in my call for the networks to release broadcast quality copies of significant 9/11 videos for research purposes. If the "anomalies" are really just compression artifacts and poor resolution, seems that OCTs would support this.

Why is it then, that it is the truth movement who are requesting the release of the videos?

Exactly. Six years into it and all you have to show for it are new, misguided threads on message boards, more YouTube "documentaries", and Ms. Wood expanding on a theory that even the most die-hard truthers reject.

While I didn't read the entire thread, I'm pretty sure your "velocity study" was ripped apart here. And we're all waiting for someone of significance to take notice of the September Clues series.

Six. Years.

You're honestly satisfied with the truth movement's progress in that amount of time?

[Loss Leader]

A Mach 2 missile would stand a much better chance of hitting the towers without been seen by people, but the problem there is the smoke trail it would have left behind, which folks would spot easily.


Not to mention that an air-to-air missile carries something like a 25 lb. warhead, a size so small that it would have almost no effect whatsoever on the tower as a whole.

(On the thin aluminum skin of a fighter jet which requires most all of its surfaces for controlled flight, however, that same 25 lbs. becomes deadly.)

[DGM]

Join me in my call for the networks to release broadcast quality copies of significant 9/11 videos for research purposes.

I've said it before, you're not trying hard enough. Have your lawyer get in touch with the networks and work a deal. The videos are not being withheld they're just the property of the network and they would not want it used for unauthorized purposes. I'm sure you of all people can understand that, would you want just anybody using your music for whatever they want?

[pomeroo]

[
quote=TruthSeeker1234;2749075]Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6426448540988365398&q=cruise+missile&total=244&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) are several clips of cruise missiles not leaving visible smoke trails (after the boost phase).

Not that I'm sold on the missile theory. We don't know what hit the towers, and we don't know exactly how they were blown up. We do know that the plane videos are provably fake, and the towers were blown to dust.



No, Ace, we know with certainty exactly what hit the towers: two commercial airliners that had been hijacked by jihadists.

We know that the towers weren't blown up because there is zero evidence suggesting that they were. The collapses of the towers have been explained by real scientists and engineers.

Your absurd fabrications about the dust have been proved false.

Now, you've had your public humiliation. You must be glowing all over. Why not bring down the curtain on a really bad show and seek medical help?

[pomeroo]

Ace,

It's over for you on this forum. You're done. You have been pounded flat every single time you have fabricated some embarrassingly witless nonsense. There is nothing for you to accomplish here. You will never persuade eyewitnesses to the crash of Flight 175 that you are anything but an evil psycho, so why keep trying? You will never persuade the people here with strong technical backgrounds that you are anything but a buffoonish liar with an infantile, paranoid conception of reality.

Lyte Trip is a silly fraud, but he understood that his game had ended when we demanded that he take his "proof" that AA Flight 77 overflew the Pentagon to a real reporter. Fame and fortune attends that proof if it's genuine. He can no longer credibly waste his time ranting to ignorant wankers on tiny blogs when he's sitting on the biggest story in history. We told him that he must actually DO SOMETHING with his "proof" and he hasn't stopped running since.

Below are the contact numbers for Fox Five NY. I spoke with a few people at the station about your claims that the video of the plane hitting the South Tower had been faked and was told either a) "This is too insane to bother with; people here have jobs to do" or b) "This person Ace Baker is a heaven-storming genius who has exposed the most gargantuan deception and the blackest crime in history."

I won't tell you which response I received. Your job is to start with Fox Five and keep going until someone agrees that you really are a heaven-storming genius. Now, we understand that all those people who will tell you that you are insane and that you have no idea of what you're talking about are actually jealous of you. They are all liars and they are all members of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. But, here's the part you haven't thought of: EVERY SINGLE SERIOUS REPORTER FOR EVERY SINGLE NEWS OUTLET YOU CONTACT WILL TELL YOU THAT YOU'RE CRAZY, SO HOW WILL YOU EVER MAKE PROGRESS?

Admittedly, it's a problem. As you get shown the door at all those leftwing, Bush-bashing media outlets, you know the truth: They're really in cahoots with the NWO. They just pretend to oppose everything Bush does. But, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy is just too vast. Absolutely EVERYBODY, except a few low-IQ guys who live in their mothers' basements, is in it. How can you hope to get around the conspiracy?

Isn't it a bitch? Here you know more about subjects you've never studied than people who've spent their lives on them and nobody will acknowledge your unprecedented genius. Hundreds of newspapers in the country and they're all under the thumbs of the invisible army of evildoers.

A lesser man would throw in the towel, but heroes and demigods laugh at obstacles. Let's get started:



Station Contacts

Last Edited: Friday, 01 Dec 2006, 6:07 PM EST

Human Resources
Senior Vice President for FOX Television Stations: Jean Fuentes
Director of Human Resources: Iris Sierra
212-452-5700 : Phone
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Finance
Regional Vice President for WNYW and WWOR: Kent Von Hertsenberg
212-452-3582 : Phone
212-879-1152 : Fax
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
Operations and Engineering
Vice President of Engineering for WNYW and WWOR: Al Shjarback
Director of Engineering for WNYW and WWOR: Edward Harris
212-452-5500 : Phone
212-452-5750 : Fax
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
Programming
Vice President and Director of Programming and Research for WNYW and WWOR: Daniel J. Carlin
212-452-2901 : Phone
212-879-1765 : Fax
__________________________________________________ _______________________
Sales
Vice President & General Sales Manager for WNYW and WWOR: Debbie von Ahrens
212-452-3930 : Phone
212-452-3978 : Fax
__________________________________________________ _______________________
Communications & Public Affairs
Senior Director of Communications & Public Affairs for WNYW and WWOR: Audrey Pass
212-452-5881 : Phone
212-452-5761 : Fax
audrey.pass@foxtv.com (audrey.pass@foxtv.com) : E-Mail
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
News
Vice President and News Director for WNYW and WWOR: Scott Matthews
Assistant News Director: Jim Driscoll (jim.driscoll@foxtv.com)
News Field Operations Manager: John Tenke
News Managing Editor: Joe Farrington
Senior Web Producer: Luke Funk (luke.funk@foxtv.com)
News Assignment Editor-Futures: Deborah Doft (deborahdoft@fox5ny.com)
212-452-3808 : Phone
212-452-5512 : Fax

Good Day New York
Executive Producer: Sarah Graham
Senior Producer: Adrienne Paxton
212-452-3618 : Phone
212-452-3815 : Fax

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ms. Audrey Pass
Senior Director of Communications & Public Affairs
WNYW Television

Dear Ms. Pass:

I write to request broadcast quality copies of any significant 9/11 videos that WNYW may have in its archives.

As you may know, there is a large and loose-knit group of individuals known as "The 9/11 Truth Movement" who are of the view that the events of 9/11 were fundamentally different than was widely reported. Besides myself, this group includes physicists, engineers, architects, and network television personalities, among others. Scientific research is being conducted.

One controversial area of research involves the 9/11 videos, and in particular the videos of United Airlines flight 175 crashing into the south world trade tower. Having examined copies of these videos available on the internet, there are those who contend that these videos were fabricated or manipulated in certain ways. This contention is based on various apparent anomalies with the plane such as speed, color, location, direction and so forth.

Others disagree, and are inclined to support the more widely held opinion of the events of 9/11. They suggest that the anomalies present on the videos are simply artifacts introduced into the videos by virtue of their having been heavily compressed and downsized for uploading onto sites such as YouTube.

There is no question that the picture and sound quality on YouTube is extremely poor compared to that of standard television.

Making broadcast quality videos available for researchers would go a long way to settling these debates. If the apparent anomalies are in fact nothing more than video compression artifacts, examination of the high quality versions would make that clear. If the videos are authentic, then I can think of no reason why WNYW would have an interest in refusing this request. The use of these videos would be limited to research and educational purposes only, and would not constitute a license for use in any commercial endeavor.

Sincerely,

Alexander "Ace" Baker
Author: Chopper 5 Composite
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Chopper5Velocity2.html

[pomeroo]

Ms. Audrey Pass
Senior Director of Communications & Public Affairs
WNYW Television

Dear Ms. Pass:

I write to request broadcast quality copies of any significant 9/11 videos that WNYW may have in its archives.

As you may know, there is a large and loose-knit group of individuals known as "The 9/11 Truth Movement" who are of the view that the events of 9/11 were fundamentally different than was widely reported. Besides myself, this group includes physicists, engineers, architects, and network television personalities, among others. Scientific research is being conducted.

One controversial area of research involves the 9/11 videos, and in particular the videos of United Airlines flight 175 crashing into the south world trade tower. Having examined copies of these videos available on the internet, there are those who contend that these videos were fabricated or manipulated in certain ways. This contention is based on various apparent anomalies with the plane such as speed, color, location, direction and so forth.

Others disagree, and are inclined to support the more widely held opinion of the events of 9/11. They suggest that the anomalies present on the videos are simply artifacts introduced into the videos by virtue of their having been heavily compressed and downsized for uploading onto sites such as YouTube.

There is no question that the picture and sound quality on YouTube is extremely poor compared to that of standard television.

Making broadcast quality videos available for researchers would go a long way to settling these debates. If the apparent anomalies are in fact nothing more than video compression artifacts, examination of the high quality versions would make that clear. If the videos are authentic, then I can think of no reason why WNYW would have an interest in refusing this request. The use of these videos would be limited to research and educational purposes only, and would not constitute a license for use in any commercial endeavor.

Sincerely,

Alexander "Ace" Baker
Author: Chopper 5 Composite
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Chopper5Velocity2.html



Let us know how the station responds to your request.

[Pardalis]

there are those who contend that these videos were fabricated or manipulated in certain ways.

Oh that's rich. You're not being straight forward, you're deliberately not saying you believe that no plane hit the towers because you know it'll make you sound like a lunatic. :rolleyes:

[DavidJames]

Oh that's rich. You're not being straight forward, you're deliberately not saying you believe that no plane hit the towers because you know it'll make you sound like a lunatic. :rolleyes:You aren't surprised are you. You didn't expected a CTist to display integrity did you?

[TruthSeeker1234]

If the videos are authentic, then I can think of no reason why WNYW would have an interest in refusing this request [for high quality video copies].

I'd like to see someone address this point. The same goes for all the involved networks, obviously. Who benefits from their continued concealment, and why?

[DGM]

I'd like to see someone address this point. The same goes for all the involved networks, obviously. Who benefits from their continued concealment, and why?
I did!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2749221#post2749221

[Brainache]

I'd like to see someone address this point. The same goes for all the involved networks, obviously. Who benefits from their continued concealment, and why?

Concealment? The footage that is used in every high quality Doco on 9/11 is being concealed? Just because they don't hand out free Beta or Digital tapes to every Tom Dick and Harry who sends them an email doesn't mean they are hiding something Ace.

If I was working at that station and I got your email, the first thing I would do is google "Ace Baker 9/11". Let's try it shall we?
Results 1-10 of about 290,000:


Blown to Kingdom Come - Have You Forgotten - 9/11 Truth song by ...Ace Baker's parody song "Blown to Kingdom Come" may be freely downloaded, distributed, and reproduced for all educational uses, including synchronization to ...
www.acebaker.co....... - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

"Judy Would" - 9/11 Truth Song by Ace Bakera 9/11 truth song by ace baker. What if you knew about a complicated crime? One that was beyond the reach of ordinary minds? ...
www.acebaker......- 20k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.aceb...]

9/11 IssuesJudy Would - a 9/11 truth song by ace baker ..... Blown to Kingdom Come - Ace Baker · Covertoperations 9/11 Blog with an extensive list of 9/11 links ...
janedoe0911.tripod.co.... - Similar pages

Morgan Reynolds - No More Games • Net9/11 Studies as Austro-Libertarian Opportunity ««•»» Ace Baker. An open letter to the faculty and students of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, ...
nomoregames......- Similar pages

Steven Jones / William Deagle's Motive Revealed - 9/11Jones suggesting that if there is a nuke-attack, 9-11 truthers should get dust ..... People like Ace Baker are opposed to Bush not because they view his ...
www.democraticundergro,,,=view_all&address=125x162123 - 91k - Cached - Similar pages

Democratic Underground - Steven Jones / William Deagle's Motive ...Jones suggesting that if there is a nuke-attack, 9-11 truthers should get dust ... Ace Baker? That's the guy who put together the devastating, yes2truth ...
www.democraticunderground.co.........- 35k - Cached - Similar pages

9/11 Truth Movement Forums9/11 Truth Movement Forums latest news: Heasd Of 9/11 Victim Fund Will Head Va. Tech Fund ... By: Ace Baker · Pentagon and Shanksville ...
www.911moveme..... - Similar pages

9/11 Conspiracy Smasher: January 2007Thus Ace Baker is clearly not paying attention but simply spouting the same old misinformation to discredit the real scientists researching 9-11! ...
911conspiracysmasher.......html - 76k - Cached - Similar pages

Scholars for 9/11 Truth - Beginner? Start HereAce Baker. Improbable Collapse (video): Scientific Evidene forthe Demolition of the WTC · 9/11:Should the Truth be Revealed or Concealed? ...
911scholars.org/index.....51 - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

2 Planes (9/11 Truth Movement Forums)I think they recorded real airplanes flying before 9/11, on a similar ... Ace Baker that makes total sense. That would never be tolerated on most 911 forums ...
forum.911movement.... - Similar pages


I broke the links on purpose. After seeing all that I don't think I'd be sending you any broadcast tapes. Sorry Ace.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Not concealing anything? They're available to "serious documentaries" are they?

Can you point me to one instance of high quality copies of:

1. The spire
2. Ghostplane
3. Pinocchio's nose
4. The Hippityhop plane

If such exist, I'll be glad to stand corrected. I certainly have never seen them, and I've been looking. Sure looks to me like they're hiding something.

[pomeroo]

Not concealing anything? They're available to "serious documentaries" are they?

Can you point me to one instance of high quality copies of:

1. The spire
2. Ghostplane
3. Pinocchio's nose
4. The Hippityhop plane

If such exist, I'll be glad to stand corrected. I certainly have never seen them, and I've been looking. Sure looks to me like they're hiding something.



No, Ace, it doesn't look like anything is being concealed. It looks very much like you are a crackpot whose absurdities have been exposed.

Follow Lyte Trip's example and win a Pulitizer Prize for some eager investigative reporter who wants to bring down George Bush. I'll bet there is at least one of those.

[Rahne Everson]

Can you point me to one instance of high quality copies of:

1. The spire
2. Ghostplane
3. Pinocchio's nose
4. The Hippityhop plane

I really want to know who the poor sap is that thought of these terms.

[pomeroo]

I really want to know who the poor sap is that thought of these terms.



Such simpletons tend to guard their anonymity fiercely. I wonder why.

[Rahne Everson]

Such simpletons tend to guard their anonymity fiercely. I wonder why.

A personal theory of mine is that it allows them to be an idiotic fool without anyone actually knowing who they are. It's the wonderful thing about the Internet -- you can be anyone you want to be, and yet how you go about it speaks volumes about your personal character.

In the real world, we put on masks and act out our daily lives, hiding our personal issues and intentions from other people. But in cyberspace, many put on an anonymous mask and be jabbering idiots. It has the ironic twist of revealing yourself far more than you would otherwise, because, knowing that you can't be found out (or at least thinking so), you can be your true self.

This is something I've noticed after spending several years roaming the Internet.

[pomeroo]

[quote=Rahne Everson;2751213]A personal theory of mine is that it allows them to be an idiotic fool without anyone actually knowing who they are. It's the wonderful thing about the Internet -- you can be anyone you want to be, and yet how you go about it speaks volumes about your personal character.

In the real world, we put on masks and act out our daily lives, hiding our personal issues and intentions from other people. But in cyberspace, many put on an anonymous mask and be jabbering idiots. It has the ironic twist of revealing yourself far more than you would otherwise, because, knowing that you can't be found out (or at least thinking so), you can be your true self.

This is something I've noticed after spending several years roaming the Internet.



Your point is well-taken. Still, it strikes me as odd that some part of their brain functions normally, i.e., they have the self-awareness necessary to assess what they're saying as absurd, and they can figure out that they shouldn't sign their names to complete idiocy. But ultimately they can't restrain themselves from saying it.

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, Mr. Baker?

What of the (likely) hundreds of thousands who witnessed the second airplane hit the south tower?This is circular reasoning. You're saying, "We know there were planes, so hundreds of thousands must have witnessed them. Because hundreds of thousands witnessed them, that proves there were planes."
Actually, that's not what he said.

Just the last part, Ace. Just the last part:

Because hundreds of thousands witnessed them, that proves there were planesThanks to Belz.

Well, Mr. Baker? Let's get the thread back on topic and address the issue of the countless people who actually saw the events unfold.

[Regnad Kcin]

Reporter Don Dahler was on the scene, and evidently he didn't see or hear a 767. The sound of a 767 at full throttle would be impossible to miss for anyone on the scene.Yes, yes, something happened while someone was looking in a different direction. But for the sake of goodness I'll conceed your reporter missed the event.

Now, what of the hundreds of thousands of others who did see it?

[MRC_Hans]

There are no frames missing in between the frames in the gif.

Clearly, those like Pomeroo and Arus are flat wrong about the images. In the preceding frames, we can easily see the nose of the aircraft, and in the freeze frame, it is not present. We can easily see the engines, and they are not present. We can easily see the wings, and they are not present, except for the tips (which are further back than the rest of the wings).

Semantic bickering. When is the impact? Answer: The impact is not a point event, it stretches over some time.

What matters is that at the point of time you like to show, what hole there is, is occupied by the plane. This is the normal physics of high velocity impacts; holes, craters, and whatever are secondary effects, and they develope as the energy from the impact spreads through the affected structurs. At the point you show, the building parts are only just being accelerated away from the impact point. For the jagged hole to be visible at this point, building parts should have been moving at supersonic speeds.


We are 3/10 of a second past initial impact, yet the big plane-shaped hole has yet to appear. In particular, the area between the fuselage and the wingtips should be a gaping hole at this point in time. I've already shown that there is 10 times enough resolution to see such a hole, if it were present.


No, it should not. It is not a resolution issue, the holes has not, could not open this early.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Oh but you don't understand Ron. The kindly folks at Purdue say that their animation is based on their finite element analysis. Now, just between you and me, I think their animation is total fiction. But, I suppose you guys have to support it.

The gaping holes at that point of the animation are left by the engines. The rest of the hole has not opened yet, or are occupied by the plane. Within the limitations of such an analysis, it appears to be accurate. Those openings that are around the fuselage and wings would not be visible on the video.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Reporter Don Dahler was on the scene, and evidently he didn't see or hear a 767. The sound of a 767 at full throttle would be impossible to miss for anyone on the scene.Now you are being even more silly. Have you EVER really seen (I mean in real life, not on a video) a low pass of a high-speed plane?

An airliner af full cruising speed flies appr. MACH 0.9; that is 0.9 times the speed of sound. Do you realize what that means for the observer of an oncoming plane? Probably not, so I'll tell you:

It means that for every yard the plane is away from you, the sound trails 9 yards behind it. If you translate that to someone standing at some distance from WTC2, the engine sound that reaches him just before the impact is from when the plane was 3 miles away.

So yes, even in a normal New York minute, not to mention in the noise and sirens on that day, it is quite possible for someone not to notice the engine noise before the impact.

The most ridiculous thong about that account, however, is that introducing your one witness who didn't see the plane, you also introduce two who DID :D.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6426448540988365398&q=cruise+missile&total=244&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) are several clips of cruise missiles not leaving visible smoke trails (after the boost phase).

Yes. Cruise missiles don't leave white trails, because they run on conventional jet engines. Are you suggesting that the observed damage to WTC2 comes from a cruise missile??

Not that I'm sold on the missile theory. We don't know what hit the towers, and we don't know exactly how they were blown up. We do know that the plane videos are provably fake, and the towers were blown to dust.That must be some kind of royal we? Ace, the only "we" who agree with all that is yourself.

Hans

[Unsecured Coins]

Ace if, you ever get a reply, please note the tone of voice when she asks you "Who are you with?"

If she says "Sure, may I ask who you are with?" she's either new or reading from a cue card.

if she covers up the mouth piece and whispers "who are you with?? you stand a real good chance of not getting the footage you request. Ditto that for hang ups and unreturned e-mails.

[BillyRayValentine]

Reporter Don Dahler was on the scene, and evidently he didn't see or hear a 767. The sound of a 767 at full throttle would be impossible to miss for anyone on the scene.

Wow. What breathtaking ignorance. Rather than explain directly, hows about a little experiment regarding auditory perception.

Next time you are outside and hear a jet passing overhead, don't look up. Close your eyes first, then reach up and point to where your sense of hearing tells you the plane should be.

Now open you eyes and see how close you are.

Then think seriously about getting some help.

[jujigatami]

Not to mention Dahler was NORTH of WTC2 and by the time the jet sound reached him he would have already been looking at the massive explosion coming through the south tower. anyone could be forgiven for not realizing the difference between a jet scream and the sound of the massive explosion of a fully loaded jetliner hitting the building. What with the utter chaos going on around him because of WTC1. It was insanity there, fire, stuff flying all around, people running and screaming, and sirens, so many sirens. It is no suprise, or even slightly out of the ordinary for someone north of the WTC to not hear or see the second plane and just see the results of the plane hitting the building. The WTC was HUGE!

I on the other hand was south of the WTC (when the second plane hit) and both heard and SAW the plane fly over and slam right in to the building.

What about that Ace?

[BillyRayValentine]

Witness: "No second plane, it was a bomb"...forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=154...

Perusing this thread, it's tough to tell if you're just a troll trying to get a rise out of people, or if you truly believe the gibberish you post. I find it hard to believe someone could be so ignorant - it must be deliberate.

Regarding witnesses, can you find one who says "I was on the southern tip of the island, looking up the entire time, and I never saw or heard a jet" or something comparable? Love to see that...

Newsflash for you: what people saw or heard that day varied a great deal, depending on where they were and where their attention was focused. To suggest that all witness experiences should have been identical is, uh, let's just say not so bright.

Someone standing in lower Manhattan, with another building obscuring his view to the south, is going to see (probably nothing, unless he's staring upward in precisely the right direction, at precisely the right moment) and hear (probably nothing but the sound of the crash; no time for the jet sounds to reach him given the speed at which it approached) things quite different from someone standing on the southern tip of the island. And both would be different from someone on Greenwich St. Which is where I was. And so on and so forth for pretty much every different vantage point and every unique, personal focus.

Actually, I feel gullible wasting my time explaining such profoundly obvious stuff - you must be trolling. But if you're not, just know that you really are making some very idiotic claims. Please have some self-respect and stop.

[Loss Leader]

Perusing this thread, it's tough to tell if you're just a troll trying to get a rise out of people, or if you truly believe the gibberish you post. I find it hard to believe someone could be so ignorant - it must be deliberate.


Well, Ace is not doing it just to get a rise out of people. But he's not doing it for intellectually honest reasons, either.

With Ace, the conclusion came first. Long before September 2001, Ace hated the federal government. He believed and still believes that the government is a cabal of rich insiders who have conspired through taxation and monetary policy to steal money from hardworking people like himself. He believed and still believes that taxation is theft. He believes that any employee of the government or recipient of government aid is complicit in the plot, is biased and is helping the government perpetuate its reign of terror.

So, on September 11, 2001, he already had his conclusion. The rest is just fiddling with the data until it fits what he already believes.

He's not doing it to get a rise out of people; he honestly thinks his insane ideas are real. But he's not examining the evidence objectively, either.

[calebprime]

Well, Ace is not doing it just to get a rise out of people. But he's not doing it for intellectually honest reasons, either.

With Ace, the conclusion came first. Long before September 2001, Ace hated the federal government. He believed and still believes that the government is a cabal of rich insiders who have conspired through taxation and monetary policy to steal money from hardworking people like himself. He believed and still believes that taxation is theft. He believes that any employee of the government or recipient of government aid is complicit in the plot, is biased and is helping the government perpetuate its reign of terror.

So, on September 11, 2001, he already had his conclusion. The rest is just fiddling with the data until it fits what he already believes.

He's not doing it to get a rise out of people; he honestly thinks his insane ideas are real. But he's not examining the evidence objectively, either.

right on, Loss Leader

[pomeroo]

[quote=Loss Leader;2752591]Well, Ace is not doing it just to get a rise out of people. But he's not doing it for intellectually honest reasons, either.

With Ace, the conclusion came first. Long before September 2001, Ace hated the federal government. He believed and still believes that the government is a cabal of rich insiders who have conspired through taxation and monetary policy to steal money from hardworking people like himself. He believed and still believes that taxation is theft. He believes that any employee of the government or recipient of government aid is complicit in the plot, is biased and is helping the government perpetuate its reign of terror.

So, on September 11, 2001, he already had his conclusion. The rest is just fiddling with the data until it fits what he already believes.

He's not doing it to get a rise out of people; he honestly thinks his insane ideas are real. But he's not examining the evidence objectively, either.



Does he really believe his fantasies? Why, when his idiocy is torn to shreds by smarter, better-informed people, doesn't he ever attempt to come to grips with their arguments? He just repeats the same discredited drivel over and over.

[Loss Leader]

Does he really believe his fantasies? Why, when his idiocy is torn to shreds by smarter, better-informed people, doesn't he ever attempt to come to grips with their arguments? He just repeats the same discredited drivel over and over.


My guess is as follows:

Some people feel a tremendous amount of agitation, anxiety and powerlessness about the world around them. They are afraid of all sudden emotional upset that they could encounter at any time.

For some of these people, naming these fears gives them a sense of power. So believing that there is a huge, government conspiracy afoot to destroy you may actually make you feel better than feeling afraid in a general, undirected sense. Your fears now have a description - they can be compartmentalized and then attacked.

Of course, you are not really attacking your fears, so you are never really going to rid yourself of them. But like picking a scab, it feels better at the time.

Ace cannot see how idiotic his ideas are because recognizing that would mean recognizing that the entire ediface his mind has invented is made of nothing. It would mean that all of those fears about the world are uncaged and unimpeded. It would be psychologically disasterous to him.




Most people confront this and overcome it around the age of nine.

[pomeroo]

[quote=MRC_Hans;2752004]Semantic bickering. When is the impact? Answer: The impact is not a point event, it stretches over some time.

What matters is that at the point of time you like to show, what hole there is, is occupied by the plane. This is the normal physics of high velocity impacts; holes, craters, and whatever are secondary effects, and they develope as the energy from the impact spreads through the affected structurs. At the point you show, the building parts are only just being accelerated away from the impact point. For the jagged hole to be visible at this point, building parts should have been moving at supersonic speeds.



No, it should not. It is not a resolution issue, the holes has not, could not open this early.

Hans



Hans, you didn't like my analogy of the swordsman slicing a candle? I actually saw a guy demonstrate this: the blade passes through; there is a noticeable pause; finally, the top part of the candle topples over. Ace wants to pretend that the severed part goes flying off at the instant of contact.

[MRC_Hans]

[quote]



Hans, you didn't like my analogy of the swordsman slicing a candle? I actually saw a guy demonstrate this: the blade passes through; there is a noticeable pause; finally, the top part of the candle topples over. Ace wants to pretend that the severed part goes flying off at the instant of contact.Sorry, I didn't notice it. Yes, it's a good analogy. Or the one where you pull the tablecloth from under the china on a set table. Or cut grass with a bamboo stick. Or ....

All nicely demonstrating the physics of high-speed interactions. Basically, what happens is that the force peak gets so steep that it cannot be distributed along the structures. Instead you get a local break-down.

Reminds me of a joke: There was this guy who was to be executed, in the old nobleman fashion, decapitation by sword. The executioner was known for his exceptionally sharp sword and fast handiwork. So the nobleman stood up, and, *swish!* the executioner swung his sword.

"Hah, you missed!" - said the nobleman.

"Nod" - said the executioner.

Hans