Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Freedom Underground with Jim Fetzer, #1

1. What actually happened on 9/11?







2. Why can’t the truth movement get anywhere?

3. Why do 99.9% of scientists remain silent on 9/11?

4. Do the people really believe the official story, or do they just support it?

6. What is the goal of 9/11 research? A new investigation?

7. What is a government?

8. What is a monopoly?

9. Should any product or service be offered at the barrel of a gun?

10. What is money?

Monday, December 1, 2008

Theory of Park Foreman

The Park Foreman video appears to pan left-to right, following an airplane.

1. Shoot entire shot in high definition with no camera motion - tripod mount, focus at infinity.
2. Import high-def footage into standard-def composition
3. Insert stable airplane layer, masking off foreground buildings as required.
4. Add virtual camera motion with automatic motion blur.
5. Add defocus filter across some frames to simulate auto-focus "fishing".
6. Export.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Anthony Lawson's Forgery

Anthony Lawson is trying to discredit the Over-Under Puffball observation.




Link to Lawson's "Puffballs Busted"


Lawson discarded half of the images in Fairbanks, and blended together pairs of images in Hezarkhani.




Link to my "Lawson the Forger"

Friday, November 7, 2008

The $100,000 Fred BS Video Compositing Challenge

Understanding the capabilities, the limitations, and the potential pitfalls of video compositing is a key to solving 9/11. One application is to the molten metal videotaped pouring out of WTC2 just before the whole building exploded into powder.

It is not currently possible to RELIABLY motion track a wobbly, tilting, panning camera shot, in REAL-TIME, so as to composite in a stream of molten metal and make it convincingly appear to flow out of a window, fall down, and occasionally splash onto the side of the building. This describes an ABC news video taken at around 10:27 AM on 9/11. The molten metal is very real, and is one of the huge mistakes made by the perpetrators. Molten metal was not supposed to pour out of the building, and we were certainly not supposed to see it.

An anonymous internet personality known as "Fred BS Registration" or simply "Fred" is the creator of a series of 9/11 videos called "9/11 Octopus". As a logo, Fred's videos sometimes feature the Hezarkhani airplane shot with the sky keyed out to reveal an octopus, so Fred obviously knows about video compositing. Recently Fred has offered his opinion about the feasibility of real-time motion tracking a flow of molten metal. Says Fred:

I do know for sure that Ace tells malicious lies, because he's lied about me on numerous occasions. Ace's claims about being a "video expert" are demonstrably false. His assertion that a molten metal video has to be real because of the impossibility of compositing onto a hand-held camera shot reveal him to be either clueless, or deliberately untruthful.

-Fred BS Registration


source

I hereby challenge Fred to back up his statements. If Fred will come forward, and, using the software of his choice, demonstrate a real-time motion track comparable to what would have been required to convincingly fake the ABC 9/11 molten metal video, I will pay him $100,000.

If Fred is interested, we can negotiate the details. I suggest making a stream of water appear to cascade off a roof, fall down, and occasionally splash against the side of the building. This would need to be created by compositing together a water stream, and a titling, panning, hand held shot of a building. Fred would need to show that no motion track data were entered into the software prior to the real-time demonstration.

I warrant that I have a line of credit in excess of $100,000.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Simon Shack Pushing Video Fakery Falsehoods

Simon Shack, aka Social Service, is the creator of September Clues. In September Clues, he promotes the false idea that the 9/11 videos were created with some sort of 3D animation. As evidence, he points out the Verrazano Narrows bridge, which claims is too large and which appears to move in some videos.

He's recently posted some data points he says point to 3D animation, rather than real video with airplane images composited in.

Simon Says:


(1) : "Are the 9/11 live broadcasts otherwise normal footage with animation planes added on top"

or

(2) : "Are the 9/11 live broadcasts for the most part composed with digital renderings of the landscape"


My reasoning for ruling out hypothesis (1) is :

- no satisfactory explanation for the various 'pastel' color schemes. Top range broadcast cameras have ISO standard automatic white balance settings for daylight conditions.
- no satisfactory explanation for the plastic, cartoon-like texture of the landscapes conspicuously evident even in the highest archive resolution footage available.
- no satisfactory explanation for the 'mask linings' seen around buildings in a wide range of shots. No explanation for observed black/transparent ghost contours.
- at least 4 newschoppers were allegedly in the air, yet all seem to be hovering roughly in the same area (views almost always from Northern vantage points). The few shots we have (ABC) of a chopper sweepingly circling and filming from South never catches any of the other choppers supposedly hovering in the airspace North of the towers.
- virtually all choppers seen in the 9/11 broadcasts simply zap by at sustained speed from one side of the screen to the other. No newschoppers, to be sure...
- some of the alleged NBC chopper shots have the towers swaying alarmingly, causing TV anchors to wonder aloud if the towers are leaning... That pendulum movement is precisely what gyroscopic cameras are designed to impede.
-some of the alleged ABC chopper shots show the chopper landing gear rotating in front of camera lens while the NY scenery remains perfectly static.
- perspective problems with foregrounds/backgrounds (and disappearing backdrops) not reasonably explainable by cinematic dollyzoom special effects. Newschoppers are supposed to and will film aerial sceneries in normal fashion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_zoom

There's much more one could add to this list of observations, but let's try an Occam's razor-style argumentation to rationalize the entire issue :

WHAT ODDS FOR 4 MAJOR (rival) TV NETWORKS TO FEATURE AERIAL/ROOFTOP VIEWS, ALL STRIKINGLY SIMILAR BUT FOR THEIR (bizarre) COLOR SCHEMES ?


Color Schemes

Indeed the color balance from some 9/11 videos is wrong. Some have too much blue, some have too much red and green. By looking at the archive videos, we don't know when these color adjustments were done. Perhaps they were done live, and were broadcast that way. Perhaps the archive footage was tweaked. Either way, the strange color balances are evidence for someone tweaking the color balances, nothing more. 3D animations are not prone to strange color.

Color matching is a common problem in video compositing. Natural lighting will have a particular shade to it, and real objects of any color will naturally reflect that tone. Composited objects often must be color-adjusted to blend into a shot and look legitimate. Perhaps the 9/11 videos were intentionally adjusted so as to help hide color matching problems with the overlaid airplanes. But I doubt it.

More likely, the colors were tweaked after the fact, as the videos were being prepared for the archives, just to serve as a distraction.

Cartoon-like Textures

The textures and details do not look cartoon-like on any 9/11 videos. Video compression will cause adjacent areas of video which are nearly the same color, to become exactly the same color. Perhaps this is what Shack is looking at. I have seen nothing at all in any 9/11 video that doesn't look like video. 

Mask Linings

The "double vision" effect Shack refers to as a "Mask Lining" is probably a ghosting effect. Ghosting is a well-known old artifact of broadcast TV, where an imperfect signal causes an offset doubled image. 

Used correctly, a luma key mask will not create a doubling effect such pointed out by Shack. Even if this doubling effect is somehow caused by pulling a less-than-perfect key, this is evidence for composting, not for total animation. 

Choppers Are Positioned

All of the news helicopters were positioned such that none of them could see the south face of WTC2. This is because making a real-time composite of an airplane going through the wall of a tower is impossible. They carefully planned to position the cameras in such a way as to make live compositing possible, as I have explained

Other Choppers

Yes, what are all those other Choppers? That's a great question. I suspect they were perpetrators, keeping a close eye on developments, and reporting the status of the floor melting and such going on in the towers. 

Swaying Towers

Here Shack just flat makes something up. No 9/11 news video shows "swaying" towers. The NBC shot has the camera at an angle, so that the towers appear crooked. It's quite suspicious that they would leave the camera "Dutch" like that for so long, but it doesn't mean the video is animated, it means the camera was tilted. 

Helicopter Skids Rotate, but Camera Remains Still

Yep. Gyroscopic camera mounts are pretty cool. A rotating wheel has a very interesting property of exerting tremendous force in all directions, within one plane. Moving the spinning wheel within that plane is easy, no more difficult than would be if the wheel was not spinning. But attempting to turn the wheel into a different plane is met with great resistance. This is the principle of a gyroscope. 

TV news cameras are mounted to the underside of the helicopter. It's like a ball, free to spin independently of the helicopter movement. The ball then has an array of spinning gyroscopes, which keep it very still, no matter what the helicopter does. 

Ordinarily, the camera points in such a way that you do not see the helicopter skids, but the camera can rotate 360 degrees around. That's what happened. The helicopter was turning, while the camera was holding still. 

Perspective Problems / Disappearing Backgrounds

Stop it. There are no perspective problems or disappearing backgrounds. The Verrazano Narrow bridge appears large behind the towers in those shots because the helicopters are about 5 miles away from the towers, and the camera is zoomed in . This is exactly what zoom lenses do. 

Alfred Hitchcock made the effect so popular, it's called the "Vertigo Effect". By moving the camera back, while zooming in, the subject can be kept at the same apparent size. But the background will appear to grow larger. 

The "moving bridge" effect occurs when you pan one way, while moving the other way. The subject will stay in the center of the shot, while the background appears to drift. 

The "missing background" is sky. Shack compared one view of the towers looking down, and sees the New Jersey coastline. Another view is from much lower, and is looking upwards, so the background is sky.

Conclusion

I've been over and over this material for more than one year with Shack, Fred BS Registration, and others. In my opinion, they are doing for two reasons:

1. They are giving critics ammunition to make no-planers look stupid. 
2. They are trying to destroy the credibility of the 9/11 tower videos, which in fact show them being disintegrated by nuclear weapons. 








John Hutchison Spews Lies and Threatens Murder

John Kenneth Huchison, of New Westminster, British Columbia, has compounded his scientific fraud by issuing death threats against me. Though his childish writing style (all caps, no punctuation) often leaves room for interpretation, there is no doubt in this instance. 

Hutchison is now claiming to have "SIGNED SEVERAL CONTRACTS" with regard to my $100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge. This is simply false. I have offered a written contract to Hutchison via email, yet nothing has been signed. No demonstration date was ever agreed to, nor have I ever agreed to pay Hutchison $5000 for a failed attempt, as he demands. If Hutchison ever fails to levitate a steel wrench in my presence, I intend to pay him zero.

Hutchison has now produced a new video showing a classic H-Effect wrench flying upwards off of a table. 




This evidently quells the Peter von Puttkamer ploy. Puttkamer, who allegedly handles distribution of Hutchison's videos, had recently claimed that Hutchison's effect was not working "as strongly" as it once had. In any event, Hutchison now says I "NEVER SHOWED UP" and implies he successfully levitated a wrench, and that I "DID NOT PAY" him.  

Correctly understanding that I have no intention to pay him, unless and until he demonstrates levitation in my presence, Hutchison goes for the scare tactic.  He first warns about  "IDIOT AEIRRIEL LOUISE SERBAN MASTER CYBER STALKER FOUND DEAD IN BURNSVILLE". 

Then Hutchison comes right out and threatens murder:

"ACE YOU WILL BE AVAILABLE WITH MY TRADITION OF 17 CENTURY DUELS"

and 

"LEGAL WORK WILL BE DONE TO ALLOW US TO DUEL BUT WE WILL HAVE OUR DUEL"

Earlier this year, when I first outed John Hutchison as a provable scientific fraud, he similarly threatened me with "FISTS AND WEAPONS".

For the record, I am threatened by John Hutchison. I believe Hutchison is threatening me with murder, or attempted murder, for the purpose of scaring me into calling off my challenge. It won't work. What Hutchison may not know is that I am physically incapable of experiencing fear, owing to some bizarre nerve damage. 


The $100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

This agreement is between Alexander “Ace” Baker (hereafter “Baker”) and John Hutchison (hereafter “Hutchison”), (collectively “the parties”). The purpose of the agreement is to settle a scientific dispute between Baker and Hutchison. Toward that end, Baker and Hutchison agree to arrange and document a demonstration of the so-called Hutchison Effect (hereafter “H-Effect”).

Background

Hutchison claims to have discovered a previously unknown energy effect capable of, among other things, levitating solid objects. Hutchison claims to have a laboratory of equipment in his Vancouver-area home capable of producing the H-Effect under his control. Hutchison has produced various videos purporting to depict various manifestations of the H-Effect, including one in which a steel wrench suddenly moves upwards, off of a table, into the air, flying out of the picture.

Baker claims that Hutchison is a fraud. Baker claims that Hutchison’s videos depict ordinary events, cleverly photographed in such a way as to make them appear unusual. According to Baker, the “levitating” steel wrench is an effect achieved with an upside-down camera. The wrench is held in place on an upside-down table, via an unseen magnet, then released and allowed to fall down, thus appearing to fall upwards, claims Baker.

Hutchison denies all accusations of fraud, states that his videos are legitimate, and that the H-Effect has been witnessed by many, including military personnel.

Challenge

Hutchison agrees to demonstrate a levitating steel wrench in the presence of Baker. Baker will, at his own expense, travel to Hutchison’s home/laboratory, arriving at a mutually agreed upon day and time.

Time: _____________ AM/PM

Date: ______________________ 2008

Hutchison agrees to be home at this time, and prepared for the demonstration.

The demonstration is said to begin the moment Baker arrives, and will last not more than 1 hour. Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to make audio/video recordings at all times during the demonstration. Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to observe and record audio/video wherever Baker wants, including under things, behind things, etc.

Hutchison agrees to then place a steel wrench on a table.

Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to verify to his own satisfaction that it is an ordinary steel wrench, allowing Baker to lift it, and examine it.

Hutchison agrees to then allow Baker to stand next to Hutchison during the time in which Hutchison operates any necessary controls.

Hutchison will then cause the wrench to move upwards off of the table, into the air at least 12 inches above the table. This levitation is to occur without anyone touching the wrench, and without any other normal means of lifting a solid object, e.g. by means of an attached string or wire.

After the completion of at least one levitating steel wrench, Hutchison will confirm that Baker was able to make a recording of the spectacular event. Hutchison will ask Baker, “Did you get that?” or words to that effect.

Baker agrees to, at that time, and under those circumstances, stop his recording, access the audio/video file, play it, and make sure that he “got it”. Baker agrees to then say to Hutchison, “Yes, I got it!” or words to that effect.

The demonstration is over when Baker says, “Yes, I got it!”, or one hour has elapsed since Baker’s arrival, whichever comes first.

Judgment

It is anticipated by both parties that the results of the demonstration will be self-evident, and obvious, one way or the other. Either Hutchison can levitate a steel wrench, making it fly upwards off the table, or else he cannot. It is anticipated that, after the demonstration, both parties will be in agreement as to whether or not the demonstration was successful.

However, in the event of a disagreement, e.g. if Hutchison claims the demonstration was successful, while Baker claims it was not successful, then both parties agree to be bound by the decision of a British Columbia Provincial Court proceeding. That is, if Hutchison believes he was wrongly denied his $100,000 prize after a successful demonstration under these terms, he can sue Baker in British Columbia. Nothing in this agreement precludes such a lawsuit.

In the event of litigation arising from a disputed result, both parties agree that the losing party shall pay all court costs, attorney’s fees, and reasonable expenses incurred, in an amount to be determined by the court.

Upon request by Hutchison, Baker agrees to make available to Hutchison a high-quality digital copy of all audio/video recordings made by Baker at the demonstration. Baker and Hutchison agree to stipulate that said recording will be admissible evidence in any litigation that may arise from this demonstration.


Payment

Within 30 days after a successful demonstration, Baker will pay Hutchison $100,000.00 (U.S.) Baker warrants that he has a line of credit in excess of $100,000. In the event of a successful demonstration, Hutchison agrees to make available to Baker his bank account deposit information, for purposes of conducting a standard bank transfer of funds.

If the demonstration is not successful, Hutchison gets precisely nothing.


Further Considerations

Furthermore, if Hutchison is unsuccessful at levitating a steel wrench, Hutchison will give to Baker a digital video copy of the so-called “Boat Experiment”. This digital video shall be dimensions 720 x 480 in size, 29.97 frames per second, and will not contain any duplicated frames. It is to be delivered to Baker no more than 7 days after the demonstration.



Witnesses

Hutchison agrees that Baker will bring one witness of Baker’s choice. The witness will be allowed to observe the demonstration along with Hutchison and Baker.

Baker agrees that Hutchison will be allowed to invite as many witnesses as Hutchison would like, and that the size of his home/laboratory will accommodate.

Ownership of audio/video

Hutchison agrees that, whatever the outcome of the demonstration, Baker will, in perpetuity, own all intellectual property in the audio/video recording made by Baker. Other witnesses who choose to make recordings of their own, will each own their respective recordings.

Baker agrees to publish and make available for download his complete and unedited recording of the demonstration.

Hutchison agrees to never interfere with the publication and dissemination of the demonstration recordings.





Alexander “Ace” Baker ________________________________ date _______________




John Hutchison ______________________________________ date________________





 

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Hoaxing the Hoaxers

Back in December 2007, Judy Wood began integrating her DEW theory with the Hutchison Effect. I knew Hutchison was a fraud, having seen his silly upside down videos years before. Could Dr. Wood actually believe Hutchison? 

To measure whether or not Dr. Wood actually believes in the Hutchison Effect, I devised a hoax. I created several replications of the Hutchison "falling up" trick. I hung a toy house upside down, made objects wiggle around with hidden magnets, then let them fall down, appearing to fall up. This is exactly what Hutchison did in several of his videos. 

Then I emailed Dr. Wood and her crew announcing I was going to attempt to duplicate the H-Effect. I claimed to have gotten a Tesla Coil on ebay. After a few days, I announced that I had duplicated the levitation. I posted my videos. 

The silence was deafening. I got no response at all from Dr. Wood, a person I had received over 100 emails from, and had at least 8 long phone conversations with. I had spent 3 days at her attorney's house in Connecticut interviewing her and the rest of her crew. 

A scientist who actually believed in the H-Effect would have been overcome with curiosity. I had my answer. So, I announced my hoax within 1 week. 

It's not as though Judy won't mention other people replicating the H-Effect. On her website, Judy links to an article claiming someone at York University duplicated the effect. Hutchison himself has posted a truly hilarious video by "J.L. Naudin" that he says also replicated the H Effect.









Gee, do you think maybe the toy is swinging around on a thread?

LOL.


 

Monday, October 20, 2008

The Real Deal on Molten Metal

Understanding the limitations of video compositing helps solve another riddle

“Molten metal, flowing and in pools”. This was the eye-catching section heading in Steven Jones’ famous “Why Indeed” article that put the 9/11 Truth Movement on the map in 2005. “Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster?” asked Jones, in an apparent rhetorical question.

Who denies it? Judy Wood denies it. Wood points out a number of problems with Jones’ molten metal evidence. This photo was used in versions of Jones’ paper with the caption “Workers evidently peering into the hot core”.




It turned out that this version of the photo had had the color balance shifted. The original photo looked more like this:





The workers are actually gathered around a searchlight.

Wood makes a big deal out of the lack of steam explosions. Water was sprayed at ground zero continually. Spraying water on molten metal will cause the water to boil rapidly, turning to steam and rapidly expanding in volume by up to 1600 times. She reminds us of the very dramatic steam explosion in New York City in 2007. If there was molten metal, why does the water not turn to steam?

And then there is this image, from NIST:



NIST admits in their documentation that the “intensity levels” were boosted. But Wood points out a worse problem – the molten metal is flowing from the wrong window! I suspect NIST photoshopped the image, specifically so that it would be discredited. How devious!

What’s the truth here? As with (no) flying objects, an understanding of the limitations of video compositing will help give us the answer. ABC news showed us a live, unstable video of yellow-hot molten metal flowing out of the south tower, just before it blew up. It is not possible to composite a flow of molten metal onto an unstable shot in real time. This is absolutely a real event, without doubt.



It is surely impossible for an office fire to heat anything up to yellow hot, which is around 1800 degrees F. The best explanation is that an incendiary, like thermate, was used to melt floor trusses. This would cause floors to sag, pulling inwards on the perimeter columns. This would be blamed on the super-hot fires, and was a key element in the NIST collapse initiation theory.

Showing that flow of molten metal was one of the 3 big mistakes made by the perps on 9/11 (the other 2 were Chopper 5 and the premature announcement of WTC7). We were not supposed to see molten metal. This was a big problem. There is absolutely no innocent explanation for molten iron or steel.

The fact that they showed it on the news was the only reason we ever heard one word about molten metal.

The task of destroying the case for molten metal was given to Steven Jones and Judy Wood. Their first step was to join the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and begin arguing about whether aluminum glows when it is heated. Of course it does, and Judy was right. This would later pave the way for the official story to claim that the flowing substance was molten aluminum, from the airplane.

Jones began his disinfo by overstating the case for molten metal – “Flowing and in Pools”. No doubt there were pools of molten metal, but we surely don’t have any pictures of it. Instead Jones relied on statements by insiders, like Keith Eaton and Mark Loizeaux. Jones also brought dubious pictures, like the “hot core” flashlight shot, and the NIST “intensity levels adjusted” wrong window shot.

Then Jones proceeded to study dust samples and discover tiny iron microsphere. When iron is melted, the liquid can form tiny droplets that harden into a spherical shape. Absent melting temperatures, iron does not form microspheres.

However, supporters of the official story have pointed out that these tiny amounts of liquid iron could have originated innocently, for example by cutting torches used in the clean-up.

Jones eventually filed a “Request for Corrections” to the NIST report, but there was not one word on molten metal in the document. How very, very odd.

Judy Wood claims there was no molten metal at all on 9/11. I presented to her my idea that incendiaries may have been used to melt floor trusses. She responded by calling me on the phone and trying to convince me that the news videos must have been faked. This is impossible, as I’ve explained.

It was very, VERY important for Dr. Wood that there be no molten metal. Why? Using incendiaries to melt floor trusses would not itself rule out her DEW theory. I concluded that day, in December of 2007, that Dr. Wood was acting to rehabilitate the official story, by helping to destroy the case for molten metal.

Confusion is very important in any disinformation campaign. The next step was to falsly marry together the idea of molten metal, and the “fuming” that took place at ground zero for over 100 days, and may not have completely subsided even now. Absent any specific comments, we are left to assume that Steve Jones’ theory is that the fuming is aluminum oxide residue from an ongoing thermate reaction. It appears impossible that such a reaction could continue for even a fraction of that time. Further, as Dr. Wood has correctly pointed out, spraying water on molten metal would likely cause a steam explosion. 

But . . . the molten metal may be unrelated to the fuming. Or they may be related only indirectly.  I think the demolition was nuclear, and that the fuming is an ongoing reaction, like the "China Syndrome". 

There was molten metal on 9/11. We see it flowing in the news video. Neither Dr. Jones nor Dr. Wood appear the least bit interested in generating a viable theory of 9/11. Given the high concentrations of strontium and barium in the dust, a nuclear reaction appears to be the best candidate to explain the disintegration of the towers. Given the inward pulling of the perimeter, melting floor trusses appears to be the motivation for using some incendiary prior to the main demolition.

Judy Wood also makes a big deal out of claiming that there was no significant heat produced by the demolitions. In closing, I ask all to please view the following video of the WTC1 demolition. Note the large expanding mushroom cloud that pushes upwards and outwards, even blooming to the right. To the right in this video is west, and that would be against the wind. There is but one explanation for a cloud that behaves this way, and that is an extraordinary heat energy input.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Conversation with Truth Sleuth

Last night I had a conversation with Truth Sleuth (Markus Allen). We discussed other researchers, mostly. I explained the "Shifting Bridge" illusion, and why we know that the 9/11 news videos are not completely animated.

MP3 file is here.

Friday, October 17, 2008

"Fullflav" Attempts a Hit Piece

Someone posting as "fullflavormenthol" on JREF claims to be a video expert, and has taken a stab at trying to review my treatise. Fullflav is just another disinfo clown trying to confuse the issues with lies and nonsense. 

Here's his pathetic attempt, with my comments.


Well honestly the problem with Ace Baker's treatise is that it isn't well thought out, or based upon a real working knowledge of the subject matter at hand.

1.) Ace believes that the functions of any video compositing program can be applied to any other compositing program, this isn't really true at all. After Effects is not Apple Motion is not New Tek Tricaster is not Avid.

Lie. I never said that, and I don't believe it. I claim that Avid was used for the live composites. Drawing clear distinctions between what is possible live and what is only possible with editing time, is crucial to solving 9/11.

2.) His logic isn't consistent, especially when trying to defend the footage as being stable enough to live composite on. He gets into issues about stabilizing the footage, and then tries to claim that by unstabilizing the footage you could tell if the plane moves strangely. It don't know, personally I could not follow what he was getting at, because it makes no logical sense from a video compositing special effects perspective. Especially given that he was attempting to claim that a gyro stabilizer would already make it stabile.

My logic is perfectly consistent. A real airplane has smooth motion. Camera motion makes smooth motion appear shaky. Stabilizing footage removes camera motion, thus making the apparently shaky motion of a real airplane look smooth again. 

Laying a smooth motion fake airplane into a shaky shot doesn't work, because you would have no camera motion on the airplane. You could demonstrate this by stabilizing the footage, and comparing the motion of the airplane before and after. The motion of a real airplane must become more stable after stabilizing the shot. If the opposite occurs, there is a problem.

A gyro-stabilizer DOES make a helicopter shot very stable, that is the point. It works very well. I still claim that the Chopper 5 shot was SLIGHTLY unstable, measurably so. But it is subtle, and overall there are only tiny imperfections in stability of the Chopper 5 shot. If Chopper 5 was wildly unstable, you could easily demonstrate it, by stabilizing the footage, and comparing before and after. 

3.) He doesn't understand the programs in question. I mean this is outside his "treatise", but when I posted still images of my motion tracking of the footage; Ace argued that I had attempted to stabilize the footage. Ace had no idea that in After Effects motion tracking and stabilization work from the same engine. He has access to this program, and doesn't really understand this. His concept of motion tracking is drawing an outline over something, well this isn't really motion tracking. Basically he is tracing a shape, and calling it an analysis. Where as I would simply tell the program to lock in on an object and track its motion through the video. Ace doesn't understand the programs he is using for an analysis beyond a very superficial, "look what effect I can create" stance.

I'm perfectly aware of how motion tracking in After Effects works, and I use it. The tracker in Motion works better in a lot of situations, but it's basically the same thing . You select a certain region of picture to track, and the software look for the same pattern of pixels on subsequent frames.  FullFlav posted some still images showing he had attempted to track the motion of the towers. That's what you do when you are trying to stabilize the footage. 

Fullflav never posted his stabilized video, or all his frames, so we really don't know what he has actually trying to do. 

Another technique that can be used to analyze motion is keyframing. It involves drawing an outline of the airplane, then animating the motion of the outline. You place one keyframe at the beginning of the airplane motion, and one keyframe at the end. Then the software will make the outline travel the exact same distance in each frame.

If the motion of the airplane is smooth, then the outline can be made to follow the airplane perfectly. If not, then not. The test then, is to see whether the motion of the airplane is smooth on the raw version, and whether it is smooth on the stabilized version. 

Fullflav claims to not be able to understand this. Maybe he really can't, I don't know.


4.) He clearly doesn't understand that a gyrostabilizer on a helicopter doesn't make the footage completely stable. It merely means that is doesn't jitter, and that doesn't mean that small bumps and movements are not seen in the final footage.

If there are small bumps and movements in the final footage, significant enough to affect live compositing, then you could easily demonstrate that, using the technique I have just described.

5.) He obviously is not familiar with the knowledge base of many people within the broadcast industry. It is not uncommon for people to be a camera operator and know how to use video editing systems. This is because most colleges that teach broadcasting require their students to know these things, and people within the industry will learn as much as they can to get the best jobs.

Fullflav  is referring to the fact that Kai Simonsen, camera op on Chopper 5, is an expert in compositing. Another poster on JREF questioned that fact, and said Simonsen was "just a reporter".

6.) He uses the technical specs of current technology and software to justify what could have been done back then. He claimed that the chopper 5 footage wasn't low quality by linking to the technical specifications of the current model of the Flir camera that is a HD version. We don't how old the one used on Chopper 5 was, and he never presented that information. He links in his "treatise" to the current specs of the Avid Symphony.

Avid Symphony was available in 2001. The camera in question is a FLIR Ultra Media II.

So this is my review of this work of his. The main flaw is that Ace has a conclusion and simply manufactures the evidence to attempt to back it up, and he simply ignores and publicly attacks those that prove him wrong. His argument style is similar to the kid on youtube that well proven wrong will still claim victory and talk about pwning you in front of everybody.

Lie. I have "manufactured" no evidence. 

My review of this thread...I don't like being lied to. I initially found myself here under the impression that someone who was neutral simply wanted to know opinions on Ace Baker's work. Quickly I found that I was at first arguing with a constant..."well according to Ace." By half way through it became very obvious I was arguing with Ace Baker.


Go ahead, try arguing with me. It's going to be quite difficult for you, because I'm right. 


Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Dave "Strawman" Rogers

Since Steve Wright left the debate in shame at having been caught out in a series of provable lies, Dave Rogers on JREF is about the only one left willing to attempt debate on the 9/11 video composites. Having been banned from JREF more than a year ago, I was using a sock-puppet "Steven Lupo Grossi" to post. JREF have now banned Steven. 

Here's Dave Rogers' latest, a typical mish-mosh of selective attributes mixed with strawman fabrications. My comments are in between. 


There's two minor points that strike me about Ace's scenario, that may be a bit of a sticking point. One of them has been mentioned here, but the other has only just occurred to me.

His claim, in so far as I can reconstruct a coherent claim from the rather backward way he arranges his arguments, is that:

Originally the composited video was not originally supposed to show any debris emerging from the face of WTC2 opposite the impact face.


Rogers means none of the composites were supposed to show the nose of the airplane emerging from the back of the tower, the way Chopper 5 did.

In order to make it easier to remove the composited image at the right moment the airliner footage was slowed down to quarter-speed after it passed the expected location of the right hand side of the tower.

That's basically right. You wouldn't want to just have the airplane suddenly disappear or suddenly stop. You could easily make the airplane layer do that, of course. But you wouldn't know precisely when (which video frame) the airplane was going to disappear across the edge of the tower. In compositing, it is standard practice to have extra frames of video on both ends of an inserted shot. These are known as "handles".

In the test shots, the position of the towers could be known, and you would figure to be able to duplicate that within about 20 pixels accuracy or so. Beginning where you figured the airplane would be hidden, you would have the airplane motion slow down, appearing to decelerate, then stop before exiting the tower.  This would give you a much greater margin of error. If any of the "deceleration" occurred while the tail of the plane was still visible, that would be explained according to Newton's laws. As it turned out, no such deceleration was observed.


Someone didn't press the stop button quickly enough, so the nose of the airliner was seen emerging from the left hand side of the tower on the Chopper 5 footage.


Evidently the towers were a bit further to the right than planned in the test shot. There is no deceleration measured on entry, and the nose of the airplane image pops out the back side of the mask, now going much slower.


The signal on both Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 footage was quickly interrupted so as to hide the absence of any emerging debris from Chopper 7.

No, the Chopper 7 footage appears uninterrupted, and I've explained this repeatedly to Dave, and he can easily view this himself. Besides the Chopper 5 blackout, there is a blackout in CNN's live coverage, which was carrying a feed from Chopper 7, but dissolving from that into a different camera shot at the time.

I've never said they were "hiding the absence of any emerging debris". Chopper 5 was trying to hide the fact that they let the nose of the airplane slip out the back. Other channels were prepared to switch to different feeds, and/or go to black to hide any possible errors. CNN did both.

All remaining videotapes showing the far side of WTC2 from the impact were hurriedly retouched to show debris emerging from the point where the nose of the airplane on the composited video was seen.

Some of the subsequent videos simply had that part edited out. 

The 2nd and 3rd generation videos came out in the days and weeks following 9/11. They are inconsistent with one another. 2nd generation shots like Gamma Press show an airplane nose coming out. After it was discovered there was no exit hole, 3rd generation videos like Naudet show dust.

Point number one is one of causality. The Chopper 7 video was interrupted before the debris emerged, and therefore before the operator error (in Ace's theory) that resulted in the apparent emergence of the nose of the airliner. How did the operator who interrupted the Chopper 7 feed know that the compositing of the Chopper 5 feed was about to be interrupted too late? 

Strwaman, already answered.

Which feed was actually showing live as Flight 175 hit the tower?

None of them. No live shot showed an airplane hitting anything. How many times must I repeat this?


If it was only Chopper 5, there was no need to show Chopper 7, just hold it back and release it a few days later suitably doctored. If it was only Chopper 7, there was even less need to show Chopper 5; just cut off a few frames earlier, leaving no need to alter all the other videos. And if it was both on different stations, then Ace's theory requires a violation of causality. There is no possible scenario for the coincidence between the cutoffs of Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 feed interruptions that makes a shred of sense, other than just that is was a coincidence.

Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 were the two live shots. They planned to show them both, and there was no way to "hold them back".

Point number two is that the slowed videotape hypothesis makes no sense.It's not video tape, it's digital video.I've already touched on this, in that slowing down the airliner after it passes the tower edge is a stupid way to try to make it easier to stop the compositing at the right moment. 

Given the need for handles, and a desire to simulate some slowing of the airplane on entry, it was the best solution.

The big question, though, is: What was supposed to happen, and how does it make sense in this scenario? 

Answered.

Was the video feed supposed to switch abruptly back to a genuine live feed? Unlikely, because the sky would abruptly chance colour. 

I think Dave meant, "the sky would abruptly change colour". And no it would not. Where the hell does he get that idea? The airplane layer is done playing, and the live camera shot is still there. We have two layers of the camera shot, one with the sky transparent, one normal. It is impossible to distinguish between that and the underlying shot.

Was the airplane video supposed to freeze-frame when the airplane had passed behind the tower? 

Answered. It was supposed to slow down and stop/disappear.

If so, why not simply do so in advance, using a video which simply replicated all the frames after the airliner had passed the tower edge with a single frame in which the airliner was hidden? 

Answered. 

It would have been trivially simple to construct such a video - or, nearly as simply, to construct one where the airliner is clipped off the images along a line down the centre of the tower - leaving no possibility of the error Ace claims occurred. 

That is not possible. It is not possible to know in real-time where the center of the tower is. That would require motion tracking the tower in real time. 

Yet, instead of making up a suitable video ahead of time, Ace wants us to believe that the conspirators let all their plans stand or fall on the ability of one technician to press the right button within a second or so of the right moment, and that the conspiracy is revealed because he forgot to do it.

Having finished his setting up his  strawman, Rogers proceeds to attack it. 

It's a classic piece of conspiracist logic. The planners had to be at the same time devilishly clever enough to understand that hundreds of thousands of people would honestly believe they'd seen a real plane hit WTC2 because they were told on TV that they must have seen it, technically able enough to perform a feat of real-time video compositing far beyond anything that had ever even been attempted before, and yet stupid enough to leave the split-second timing required to Joe Schmoe down in the video suite, who forgot to press the big red button at exactly the right moment.
No, I'm quite sure they left the timing to Joe Schmoe in the helicopter, and that would be Kai Simonsen on Chopper 5. 

Funnily enough, the parts where the conspirators are required to be fiendishly clever are always the parts the conspiracist can simply handwave away. And yet it turns out that the parts where the conspiracist needs a detailed explanation of the sequence of events are always the parts where the conspirators are required to be unable to formulate a coherent plan. Almost as if the fault were not in the hypothetical conspirators, but in the people formulating the hypotheses.

Dave

I have detailed the plan that must have been implemented. The fact that Dave Rogers needs to so completely misstate it, speaks volumes. 

Friday, October 10, 2008

What Rule of Law?

So –called “Rule of Law” is theoretically impossible in the presence of a central government. Let us begin with definitions.

Rule of Law means that no one is above the law. It means a body of law that has two properties:
1. The law applies equally to everyone
2. The law constrains the rulers, as well as the ruled.
John Adams, in drafting the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, envisioned “ . . .a government of laws, not of men”. Can a government actually embody Rule of Law? Consider the definition of a government:
Government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation.
19th century economist John C. Calhoun was the first to point out a fundamental fact about taxation: Imposing any sort of tax automatically creates two distinct classes of citizens – net tax payers, and net tax consumers. No matter what sort of tax it is – income tax, sales tax, property tax, death tax, or any other – there will be one group of people who, on balance, pay the tax, and another group who, on balance, consume the benefit of the tax.

All government workers, for example, derive their subsistence solely from taxes. Any tax paid by these people is a complete statistical fiction. Government salaries come out of the general fund. Earning a government salary of $100,000 while paying $25,000 in tax is exactly the same as earning $75,000 and paying no tax. Government officials, bureaucrats, government contractors, military personnel, many “non-profit” organizations and others qualify as net tax consumers. All are in a fundamentally antagonistic position against the taxpayers.

We could imagine a system in which taxes and government spending were somehow “fair”, that is everyone received benefits in exact proportion to the tax they paid. But then what a colossal waste of effort the whole process would be! Collecting taxes and creating government spending programs, just so that everyone could end up right where they were to begin with?! Absurd. No, the entire point of taxation is to forcibly take wealth away from some and give it to others.

Taxing and spending cannot possibly apply equally to everyone. Taxes must be collected. The United States Constitution authorizes Congress to “lay and collect” taxes. There must be a special class of citizens called “tax collectors” who are empowered to take money from others, using force if need be. How then can the law apply equally to the tax collector as to the taxpayer? It cannot.

Now consider the government’s monopoly of jurisdiction. This means that whenever two parties have a dispute, the government is the final decision-maker about who wins and who loses. Most importantly, this includes disputes involving the government itself. Obviously the government will tend to find in its own favor. It’s hardly possible that any body of law could be applied equally to all people, when one group of people (the government) can be both litigant and judge.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in his lecture “Prospects for a 2nd American Revolution”, warns:
“Rather than a protector and a judge, a monopolist will increasingly become a protection racketeer, a destroyer and invader of the people and property he was supposed to protect, as well as a war-monger and an imperialist". 
                                -Hans-Hermann Hoppe
What about “Checks and Balances”? Only a competitive free market can provide real checks and balances. Customers reward good service and punish bad with their purchasing decisions. What mechanism exists to check and balance the government monopoly? None that I can see.

The famous “Separation of Powers” is a non-starter. On paper, government power is divided into three branches, “Executive”, “Legislative” and “Judicial”. So what? This is simply division of labor. Legislators write laws, courts interpret them, and executives enforce them. These people and these agencies typically share a set a mutual self-interest.

Suppose the issue is whether or not to raise taxes. All of the people in all three branches of government derive all of their income from taxation. We could predict that legislators would pass laws raising taxes, executives would sign such laws, and judges would interpret such laws as being Constitutional. In practice, this is what has happened. Government revenue in the U.S. is at an all time high after more than two centuries of “checks and balances”.

The same goes for expansion of government power in general. All three branches of government are in favor of it. Operating under a Constitution that allegedly places limits on power, the U.S. government has involved itself in virtually every aspect of private affairs, virtually every industry, and established permanent military bases in almost every corner of the globe.

Minarchist libertarians are fond of advocating a return to strict Constitutional limits on power. What limits? I’ve just had a fresh read of the U.S. Constitution. I’m inclined to agree with Robert LeFevre, that it was designed as an instrument of limit-less power. Lay and collect taxes? Promote general welfare? Provide for common defense? Ensure domestic tranquility? Regulate interstate commerce? Go into debt? Declare war? Where on Earth is any limitation? I see none, but the point is moot. Either the framers intended an all powerful government in the first place, or they didn’t. If they didn’t, then their Constitution was an epic failure at keeping the government reigned in.

Would a different Constitution be better? I think not, and this is my point. It is fundamentally impossible to devise a single set of laws that constrain government officials as well as the general citizenry. Government officials always play by a different set of rules. Always. They must, otherwise there is no taxation, no judicial monopoly, no government, as currently understood.

And so, for centuries, we have seen the predictable results play out:
  • Government passes laws against theft, then exempts itself and calls it “taxation”.
  • Government passes laws against mass murder, then exempts itself and calls it “foreign policy”.
  • Government passes laws against counterfeiting, then exempts itself and calls it “monetary policy”.
  • Government passes laws against slavery, then exempts itself and calls it “conscription”.
  • Government passes laws against eavesdropping, then exempts itself and calls it “counter-terrorism”.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

Rule of Law can only exist in a free market, in the absence of a central government. Competing agencies will deliver a much better quality of justice and defense services, for the same economic reasons that competition provides better quality of everything. Customers buy only what they choose. Producers who provide good products and services at a good price are rewarded with profit. Producers who do a bad job, suffer losses. 

Read “Man, Economy and State” by Murray Rothbard, available for free on the web. Building upon Ludwig von Mises’ “Human Action”, Rothbard not only gives a complete theory of the unhampered free market, but goes on to deliver a complete economic theory of the State. Rothbard and the rest of the Austrian school of economics have given a rich literature proving the viability of the free market to deliver all goods and services, including protection, defense, and dispute resolution.

Abolish your government. According to the Declaration of Independence, it is not only your right, it is your duty to abolish your government when it has become destructive of your rights. Abolishing government begins between your ears. Stop believing in it. Start understanding it for what it is: An institutionalized criminal gang.

Read “No Treason – The Constitution of No Authority” by Lysander Spooner. In the mid-19th century, Spooner advanced an iron-clad argument. The Constitution appears to be a contract. It simply does not apply to anyone who did not sign it. Did you sign it? Neither did I. The “founders” of the United States had no more right to declare you a “citizen” and oblige you to pay tribute and fight wars than does your next door neighbor.

While there is broad disagreement about what the size and scope of government should be, statists unanimously agree that at minimum, society requires a government to provide a system of justice and protection. But government cannot do this, even in theory. Justice and protection require Rule of Law, and Rule of Law is impossible under government.

A second American revolution is due. What form it should take is a great question. I suggest contemplating mass secession into independent towns, neighborhoods, and individuals. This does not mean abandoning society, quite the opposite. Your government is not your society, it is a parasite upon your society. Throwing off tyrannical government will allow civil society to flourish and prosper as never before.



Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Theater of the Absurd

This is really getting tedious. We've got the economist, the musician-turned-video-expert, and the photo analyst discussing physics for the philosopher to argue physics with the mathematician. We've got the nuclear physicist doing material science, and the mechanical engineer and material scientist arguing directed energy. We have the former head of directed energy claiming to be a truther, and saying . . . nothing really. We have an economist suing a long list of huge companies for perpetrating the airplane hoax, but he won't sue the guys he knows did it, that being FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS. 

The other side has a million structural engineers, but they won't model the structure. They leave that to . . . a chemist. We have a chemist too, but he's arguing physics and fire temperatures. We have a theologian summarizing all of the evidence from all of the people working outside their field, and doing a pretty damn good job explaining why the official story can't be true. But he supports the airplane hoax, and says the solution is one world government. Which is exactly what the other side wants.

What the hell am I supposed to do with this?

Monday, October 6, 2008

Mushroom Cloud




Look above the tower after it begins exploding, beginning around :10. Notice the huge, rising, expanding new cloud. Observe the plume expanding to the right, which is west, which is against the wind. Marvel at the cauliflower shapes, much more distinct than the surrounding smoke that has diffused into the air. There is one and only one explanation for this phenomenon - a very large heat energy input. Standard demolitions do not create a mushroom cloud. This one did.

Besides proving demolition, this video rules out Judy Wood's ridiculous claim of "no significant heat". For anyone who hasn't been paying attention, Judy Wood is a fraud. John Hutchison is a fraud. There is no such thing as any Hutchison Effect. The twin towers were blown up with explosives, most likely nuclear.

Judy Wood is certainly an insider charged with the task of misinterpreting the evidence, and leading people to a false conclusion. 

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Blackouts


FOX, CNN, and the Naudet Brothers documentary all feature a blackout, right at history's defining moment. What are the odds of that happening by chance?


Friday, September 26, 2008

What Can I Do?

So you're convinced 9/11 was an inside job. The current financial "crises" and "bailout" of wall street is yet another engineered terror event designed to elicit support for massive theft. 7/7 bombings. Gulf of Tonkin. Pearl Harbor. Kennedy. It never ends, and you've finally wised up. A lot of us have finally wised up. 

People often email me and ask, "What can I do about it?"

Here are 3 non-violent, and perfectly legal responses to your illegitimate rulers. These are things you can easily do. In fact, they are mostly just things you should STOP doing:

1. Don't vote. 
2. Don't fight.
3. Don't watch the news.


Don't vote. 

You have no choice. The "Democrats" and the "Republicans" agree wholeheartedly with one another on every substantive issue. They both support the official story of 9/11. They both favor a leviathan government, high taxes, and high debt. They both support the Federal Reserve System, and the endless war. They both favor giving $1 trillion of your tax money to the Wall Street Bankers to reward them for having stolen so much money already. They argue incessantly over insignificant details, on television. This is to make you think you have a choice. You don't. 

Voting legitimizes the illegitimate. Voting legalizes the illegal. Voting is an act of violence, because everything government officials do is done under the threat of violence. When you vote, they do it IN YOUR NAME. When you vote, you endorse the system, and tacitly agree to accept the outcome and be ruled by the winner. You wouldn't vote in an election between the "Crips" and the "Bloods" for who was going to rule the gangs of L.A. The only difference is that the "Repbulicans" and the "Democrats" are much richer and more successful at their crime syndicate. 

Don't fight.

Do not join the military. Raise your children to understand the military for what it is:  An organization dedicated to mass murder. The military takes innocent young men and women and trains them to be killers. Every job in the military, no matter how far removed from combat, is ultimately directed at the large goal of aggressive mass murder. In a just world, the military would exist for defensive purposes. We do not live in that world. 

Don't watch the news.

The mainstream news organizations are nothing more, and nothing less, than the propaganda outlet for the government. Everything presented is chosen and packaged to advance the agenda of the government. Apparent disagreement and argument is presented for show purposes only. All debate is strictly limited to questions about which the government does not care. 

If you watch the news, do so defensively. With every story, ask yourself, "Why does the government want me to believe that?" The proposed solution to every problem is the expansion of government and the increase of government spending. Notice the pattern. 

The mainstream news organizations willingly conspired to present the 9/11 show. They inserted fake airplane images into their news footage. Then they blew the twin towers to kingdom come with nuclear weapons, and told you it was a "collapse".  News is not reality. As Karl Rove admitted, the U.S. is an empire, and when we act, "we create our own reality".

Raise your children to distrust the "news". Laugh at the news. Laugh to keep from crying. Openly express condescending bewilderment that so many idiots could actually believe the lies spewing forth from news anchors. Your children will pick up on your attitude, and that is a very good thing.



 














Thursday, September 25, 2008

9/11 Grand Unified Theory

Pre 9/11

Twin towers are loaded with low yield fission-triggered hydrogen fusion devices, about every third floor. This is accomplished during the "fireproofing upgrade" that took place 1999-2001. Charges designed to create an "airplane explosion" and the "airplane shaped hole" are installed at appropriate locations, by "performance artists" Gelatin. Thermate is installed in floor trusses of "impact area".

Smoke bombs and conventional incendiaries are also present. Enough napalm (or similar hydrocarbon) to make a big fireball and start an office fire.

A special flash charge is set to detonate visibly on each of the towers, right where the airplane nose appears to hit.

Key operatives in the North Tower are the "performance art" group "gelitin".

Pentagon wall is loaded with explosives during the "fortification" that took place prior to 9/11.

Explosives are buried in the abandoned strip mine outside Shanksville.


FAA radars are equipped with "inject" capability as are NORAD radars.

FEMA agents arrive in lower Manhattan day before.

9/11

Special Ops agents (hijackers) are allowed through security with handguns with silencers, cockpit keys, gas, gas masks, boxcutter knives, and whatever else they need. They are most likely Israeli, because they need to look "Middle Eastern". At least one per plane is a 7x7 pilot.

Once the plane is on autopilot, they unlock the cabin, and shoot both pilots dead. They wield boxcutters, etc, as per the official story. Airphone calls are made, and are legitimate, as per the official story.

Transponders are turned off, as per official story. Radar can now track latitude and longitude, but not altitude and not identity.

Each flight is landed. AA11 and UA175 land at Steward Air Force base, not merely fly over it as reported. UA93 lands at Cleveland, as initially reported. AA77 lands somewhere, possibly at Parkersberg, West Virginia.

Each flight is replaced on radar with a false radar blip. Radar blips continue toward targets.

Meanwhile, passengers and crew are taken to secure locations, such as the "debriefing" area at Stewart, and the NASA joint at Cleveland, as per Loose Change 2. They are executed. They are dismembered. Blood samples are taken and occasional body parts are burned with jet fuel, and bagged. Female flight attendants are first gang raped, then murdered (the executions can only be carried out by monsters, such individuals wouldn't miss an "opportunity").

North Tower "impact" explosion is detonated. This includes a well-timed destruction of key floor trusses, sagging floors and creating an inward pull at the perimeter. Result is a few inward-bent columns. Thermate is ignited, beginning to melt floor trusses under key floors of WTC1. Smoke bombs are ignited.

Airplane images are composited into the Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 camera shots in real-time. Chopper 5 is screwed up badly.

South Tower "impact" explosion is detonated. Airplane engine is shot northward from a cannon mounted about the 80th floor. Thermate is ignited, beginning to melt down the cannon, lest it survive the demolition to follow.

News media outlets are delivered talking points as usual. "Airplane". "Hijacker". "Suicide". "Terrorist". "Osama bin Laden".

Molten iron from the melting cannon begins flowing out of floor 80 of the South Tower. It appears on television. South Tower must go. Main nuclear demolition of WTC2 is initiated. Tower explodes into dust, mushroom cloud forms.

Talking point: "Collapse".

Truss melting in WTC1 is more successful, liquid metal is contained. Floors sag, perimeter is pulled inward according to plan.

Main nuclear demolition is detonated. Tower explodes into powder, mushroom cloud forms.



















All 4 flights existed and took off as advertised.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Ammunition for Propaganda

Ammunition for Propaganda

A critical review of "9/11 Justice"

by Ace Baker

September 12, 2008

I watched the short film "9/11 Justice" last night at the 911TruthLA conference. It's also available on Google Video.

The film advances the proposition that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Myers, and Condoleezza Rice are provably guilty of conspiracy to commit mass murder for the events of 9/11.

I agree. The neo-cons murdered Americans on 9/11. In fact, the film does not go far enough, and does nothing to point the finger of blame at any news media execs and anchors, who are also provably involved. I wholeheartedly agree with the general premise and intent of "9/11 Justice".

But the film is so riddled with errors and false assumptions that I wonder if the filmmakers were just sloppy, or were actually trying to discredit the movement and create potent ammunition for the government propagandists.

For example, the narrator claims: "A specialized explosive used by professionals to demolish a steel frame is called thermate. It is placed in key places, and melts large steel joints in an instant."

This is just plain wrong. Thermate is NOT an explosive, it is an incendiary. It is an alumnothermic reaction which produces very high temperatures, high enough to melt steel. That is what incendiaries do, it is not what explosives do. Explosives produce very high air pressure.

Thermate is NOT "used by professionals to demolish a steel frame". To cut steel, professional demolition engineers use high explosives, such as RDX. It is difficult to control the timing of a thermate reaction, and demolitions require precision timing.

This is not to say thermate was not PART of the 9/11 demolitions. We certainly see molten metal flowing out of the south tower just prior to the destruction. Likely it was used to melt floor trusses and cause floors to sag, which would later be blamed on "jet fuel fires".

But thermate CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT possibly be responsible for the disintegration of the towers. The towers mostly turned to dust. They didn't melt. They exploded. There was a mushroom cloud. The film makes mention of the extraordinary explosive force of the demolition, but leaves us to assume this was from thermate. Based on this, the critics would be all too happy to dismiss the entire film as ridiculous, and that's a shame.

So total was the disintegration, I suspect it was a low-yield nuclear fusion reaction, sequenced from the top down. This might explain the high tritium levels, the high cancer rates, and the "China Syndrome" meltdown fuming reaction which persisted visually for months, and hasn't completely stopped to this day. Do you wonder why they haven't built anything on ground zero yet? What type of explosives were used is certainly debatable. But it wasn't thermate, and thermate isn't an explosive.

The thermate business comes from Steven Jones, of course. It's understandably seductive to be swayed by an actual Ph.D. physicist who purports to be a truther. But a review of the totality of Jones' work tells us something is terribly wrong. His entire thesis is founded upon the presence of molten metal, "flowing and in pools". Molten metal IS impossible to reconcile with the official story. So why then is there no mention of molten metal in Jones' "Request For Corrections" to NIST? Why is there no mention of molten metal in his "Ten Points of Agreement" article?

I digress.

Another serious problem I have with "9/11 Justice" (and Jones) is that it repeatedly calls the destruction a "collapse". The twin towers did not collapse. They exploded. The word "collapse" is a meme propagated by the govern-media. It's mind control. Truthers would all do very well to avoid that term. Avoid it like . . . like an old cliche.

"Justice" repeats the Larry Silverstein "pull it" quote, perhaps the most infamous of all 9/11 tidbits. But the film leaps to the outrageous claim that "Larry Silverstein . . .accidentally told PBS that he had [WTC7] demolished."

Larry Silverstein did no such thing. A moment's thought will show that Silverstein delivered a very well-scripted, perfect little nugget of ambiguous disnifo. Silverstein was not speaking at some live event, he was interviewed for a PBS official propaganda show. Silverstein was rehearsed. The show was edited. It was reviewed. Rest assured, they WANTED you to hear Silverstein's statement.

"Justice" plays Silverstien saying, ". . .and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse". Scandalously, the film claims that we don't know who Silverstein means by "they". That's false. Of course we do. Silverstein said, "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander . . .". "They" would refer to the Fire Department.

The Silverstein statement was deliberately crafted in just such a way that it COULD be interpreted to mean "demolish the building", but it could ALSO be interpreted to mean "pull the firefighting operation". Which, of course, is what his spokesman said he meant.

"Pull it" was NO accident.

Along the same lines, "Justice" uncritically accepts as true the claim that there was an August 6, 2001 White House memo warning Osama bin Laden was prepared to strike. This may be the most suspicious element included in the short film. It's very clear to me that the intent of "leaking" the August 6 memo was to reinforce the idea that "Osama did it", to focus public debate away from "What really happened" and on to "Could Bush have stopped it?" See how it works?

A misuse of a scientific term further discredits the film. Says the narrator, "Jet fuel does not create anything near the heat necessary to melt steel". What he meant to say was, "Jet fuel cannot burn at a high enough temperature necessary to melt steel.

Heat and temperature are not the same thing. Temperature is the degree to which something is releases energy, heat is the amount of energy released. My water heater has much more heat than a burning match, but the burning match is a much higher temperature than the water heater. The intended point about hyrdrocarbon fires and steel is correct, and important. But the botched terminology is just one more distraction.

A silly error needlessly confuses the issue on WTC7. WTC7 was 47 stories, not 42 as the film states. WTC7 is a smoking gun, no question. But if the filmmakers can't even get a simple fact straight, it doesn't bode well for credibility, especially in the minds of the undecided.

Throughout the 20 minutes, "Justice" just assumes the official story of plane crashes at the WTC. There is essentially no hard evidence to support this position, and a mountain of data proving that the airplanes are video composites. I certainly appreciate the contentious nature of the plane hoax debate within the movement, so I'll leave planes to one side for the moment, and deal with that another day. There is plenty else wrong with "9/11 Justice". Please don't promote this film.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Model of Disinformation



The purpose of disinformation is to deceive. Large-scale govern-media operations require obedience and acceptance of policy objectives, which typically run contrary to the interest of most people.

Broadly speaking, disinformation can take one of two forms - trying to get the public to believe something which is actually false, and trying to get the public to disbelieve something which is actually true.

A. Acceptance of a false narrative
  1.  Divide the false narrative into component pieces, then repackage each element surrounded by true (but irrelevant) details.
  2. False narrative is presented by a seemingly credible source (expert).
  3. Public swallows the false story piece by piece.

B. Rejection of a true narrative
  1. Divide the truth into component pieces, then repackage each element surrounded by false details. The false details range from plausible to absurd.
  2. Repackaged truth is presented by a lunatic.
  3. Public rejects truth, "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

$100,000 WNYW Chopper 5 Challenge

I challenge WNYW Television (Fox-5 New York) to release to me a broadcast-quality copy of the raw Chopper 5 airplane footage, plus a copy of the WNYW broadcast output for the morning of 9/11. If they do so, compliant with the parameters below, I will pay a reward of $100,000.00 in U.S. currency. 


1. For purposes of this challenge, the master recordings are assumed to exist on NTSC 3/4" Beta video tape, a newsroom standard for many years up until 2001. WNYW shall make 1st generation digital copies directly from the Beta masters. 

2. The digital copies will be dimensions 720 x 486.

3. The digital copies will be interlaced.

4. The digital copies will be free of any and all processing, including but not limited to color correction and frame blending.

5. The digital copy of the raw Chopper 5 footage will be free of any and all logo graphics. The one (and only) known televised replay of the Chopper 5 footage occurred on CNN, a few short minutes after the event. The FOX-5 graphics are not present, indicating that the footage was recorded without them.

6. The digital copy of the broadcast output shall comprise the unedited broadcast which actually occurred on the morning of 9/11, on WNYW,  both audio and video.

7. The digital copy of the broadcast output will run continuously beginning no later than 8:30 a.m., and ending no earlier than 9:30 a.m. 

8. All digital copies will include the VITC time-code area.

9. The videos are licensed to me in perpetuity. 

Any clarifications, questions or details may be discussed. I warrant that I have a line of credit in excess of $100,000.


Sincerely, 

Alexander "Ace" Baker

cc

Isaura Nunez, WNYW 
Kai Simonsen, WNYW
Steven Jones
Steve Wright
Ron Wieck
Gary Popkin
Jim Fetzer
Judy Wood
Morgan Reynolds
Jerry Leaphart
Andrew Johnson
John Hutchison
Killtown











Sunday, August 17, 2008

$100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

August 17, 2008

To John Hutchison and Judy Wood:

I hereby challenge John Hutchison and/or Judy Wood to reproduce the "Hutchison Effect". If successful, according to the criteria below, I will pay a reward of $100,000.00 in U.S. currency.




1. I will travel at my own expense to Hutchison's laboratory (shown above) in the Vancouver area.
2. I will bring 3 video cameras with tripods.
3. Hutchison will describe and point out his apparatus components on video. I will have unrestricted access to the laboratory area, being allowed to video anything which piques my curiosity.
4. Hutchison will then produce the levitation of a steel wrench, as depicted in at least one of his previous videos. The wrench must fly upwards off of the table.
5. During the levitation demonstration, I will video tape continuously on all 3 cameras. One camera will be aimed at Hutchison as he operates any controls, one camera will be aimed at the wrench, and the last camera I will hand-hold, aiming at anything I choose.

While Hutchison formerly claimed to have had trouble recreating the Hutchison Effect, as of this past January, he claims to be able to reproduce it "regularly". I don't believe him. I think John Hutchison is a fraud.

Judy Wood is also a fraud. Wood claims that a weaponized version of the Hutchison Effect was used to destroy the twin towers. In trying to discredit me, and rehabiliate the Hutchison Effect, Judy Wood has issued demonstrably false claims about me, e.g. calling me a "plagiarist" with respect to my music writing.

I have reproduced the "Hutchison Effect" for exactly what it is - video fakery. Judy Wood created this page about my efforts, and intentionally left off most of the evidence that I supplied her with, a clear case of scientific fraud on the part of Judy Wood.

This is an opportunity for Hutchison/Wood to prove it up, and have a very nice payday. I warrant that I have I line of credit exceeding $100,000. Offer stands until the end of time.

Sincerely,

Alexander "Ace" Baker

cc

Judy Wood
John Hutchison
Jerry Leaphart
Morgan Reynolds
Jim Fetzer





--------------

The $100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

This agreement is between Alexander “Ace” Baker (hereafter “Baker”) and John Hutchison (hereafter “Hutchison”). The purpose of the agreement is to settle a scientific dispute between Baker and Hutchison. Toward that end, Baker and Hutchison agree arrange and document a demonstration of the so-called Hutchison Effect (hereafter “H-Effect”).

Background

Hutchison claims to have discovered a previously unknown energy effect capable of, among other things, levitating solid objects. Hutchison claims to have a laboratory of equipment in his Vancouver-area home capable of producing the H-Effect under his control. Hutchison has produced various videos purporting to depict various manifestations of the H-Effect, including one in which a steel wrench suddenly moves upwards, off of a table, into the air, flying out of the picture.

Baker claims that Hutchison is a fraud. Baker claims that Hutchison’s videos depict ordinary events, cleverly photographed in such a way as to make them appear unusual. According to Baker, the “levitating” steel wrench is an effect achieved with an upside-down camera. The wrench is held in place on an upside-down table, via an unseen magnet, then released and allowed to fall down, thus appearing to fall upwards, claims Baker.

Hutchison denies all accusations of fraud, states that his videos are legitimate, and that the H-Effect has been witnessed by many, including military personnel.

Challenge

Hutchison agrees to demonstrate a levitating steel wrench in the presence of Baker. Baker will, at his own expense, travel to Hutchison’s home/laboratory, arriving at a mutually agreed upon day and time.

Time: _____________ AM/PM

Date: ______________________ 2010

Hutchison agrees to be home at this time, and prepared for the demonstration.

The demonstration is said to begin the moment Baker arrives, and will last not more than 1 hour. Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to make audio/video recordings at all times during the demonstration. Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to observe and record audio/video wherever Baker wants, including under things, behind things, etc.

Hutchison agrees to then place a steel wrench on a table.

Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to verify to his own satisfaction that it is an ordinary steel wrench, allowing Baker to lift it, and examine it.

Hutchison agrees to then allow Baker to stand next to Hutchison during the time in which Hutchison operates any necessary controls.

Hutchison will then cause the wrench to move upwards off of the table, into the air at least 12 inches above the table. This levitation is to occur without anyone touching the wrench, and without any other normal means of lifting a solid object, e.g. by means of an attached string or wire.

After the completion of at least one levitating steel wrench, Hutchison will confirm that Baker was able to make a recording of the spectacular event. Hutchison will ask Baker, “Did you get that?” or words to that effect.

Baker agrees to, at that time, and under those circumstances, stop his recording, access the audio/video file, play it, and make sure that he “got it”. Baker agrees to then say to Hutchison, “Yes, I got it!” or words to that effect.

The demonstration is over when Baker says, “Yes, I got it!”, or one hour has elapsed since Baker’s arrival, whichever comes first.

Judge

Baker and Hutchison agree that _____________________________________ will serve as Judge of the demonstration.



Payment

Baker warranties that he has a line of credit in excess of $100,000. If Hutchison is successful in levitating a wrench, Baker will access his credit, and transfer $100,000 (U.S.) into the bank account of Hutchison, not more than 14 days after the demonstration.


Further Considerations

Furthermore, if Hutchison is unsuccessful at levitating a steel wrench, Hutchison will give to Baker a digital video copy of the so-called “Boat Experiment”. This digital video shall be dimensions 720 x 480 in size, 29.97 frames per second, and will not contain any duplicated frames. It is to be delivered to Baker no more than 7 days after the demonstration.




Witnesses

Hutchison agrees that Baker will bring one witness of Baker’s choice. The witness will be allowed to observe the demonstration along with Hutchison and Baker.

Baker agrees that Hutchison will be allowed to invite as many witnesses as Hutchison would like, and that the size of his home/laboratory will accommodate.

Ownership of audio/video

Hutchison agrees that, whatever the outcome of the demonstration, Baker will, in perpetuity, own all intellectual property in the audio/video recording made by Baker. Other witnesses who choose to make recordings of their own, will each own their respective recordings.

Baker agrees to publish and make available for download his complete and unedited recording of the demonstration.

Hutchison agrees to never interfere with the publication and dissemination of the demonstration recordings.





Alexander “Ace” Baker ________________________________ date _______________




John Hutchison ______________________________________ date________________





Friday, July 25, 2008

Theory of Edited (non-live) 9/11 Airplane Videos

I demonstrate how the Ghostplane video was created. I use Apple Motion, any high-end compositing environment could have been used on 9/11.



A better quality version of the demonstration video may be downloaded here.

1. Stabilize source video.
2. Create airplane.
3. Add airplane, color correct, blur.
4. Establish motion path of airplane.
5. Add layer mask to disappear airplane.
6. Add shadows on tower face.
7. Add hole, with masking.
8. Add puffballs.
9. Unstabilize everything.