Saturday, March 29, 2008

Greening Admits "No Evidence" of Gravity Collapse

Frank Greening, along with co-author Zdnek Bazant, has authored the only mathematical model which attempts to show that a gravity collapse of a twin tower is possible. I think it's completely bogus, but even if something WAS theoretically possible, that doesn't mean it occurred. I kept pressing Dr. Greening for evidence that a gravity collapse happened. Eventually he offered this:

Subject: Re: Evidence please
Date: October 8, 2007 6:54:37 PM PDT


Look at photo 044 on the parrhesia site

and use your imagination.


Here's "photo 044 on the parrhesia site".

From: Ace Baker
To: greening
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: follow up for documentary + G.U.T.

I'll try and ask this in as broad a way as i can. Your model purports to show that a gravity collapse is possible. Assuming for the sake of discussion that your model is correct, just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean it actually occurred.

What evidence do you have that a gravity collapse occurred?

What evidence do you have that floors stacked up?

What evidence do you have for the hat truss landing on the top of a pile?

What evidence do you have for your belief in a 60 foot pile (besides photo044 and 'using my imagination')?


Ace Baker

Subject: Re: follow up for documentary + G.U.T.
Date: November 15, 2007 11:08:25 AM PST

As for your list of questions, I would have to say that I have no evidence for the things you mention, but that doesn't mean I have it all wrong! I would say that you and Judy Wood et al have very little evidence for DEWs because none of you really know the capabilities of DEWs.


Boldface added.

Bazant Completely Blows It

Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., of Northwestern University, is, in fact, the end-all and be-all of the official 9/11 theory. Dr. Bazant published his "Simple Analysis" of the 9/11 "collapses" some 48 hours after the events. 48 hours. Think about it. For the first time in the 100+ years of steel frame engineering history, multiple buildings all "collapse", completely, supposedly due to fire primarily, and Bazant publishes a detailed theory 48 hours later? This is bizarre on its face.

Bazant, along with co-author Frank Greening, have published the only model of a gravity-driven twin tower collapse. NIST bypassed the subject entirely, studying only the events leading up to "collapse". I have dialoged extensively with both Bazant and Greening. Both have now made truly glaring admissions to me. Greening admitted he has "no evidence" to support his position, this is presented in another article.

Bazant admitted that "100%" of the debris ejected from the towers could go outside the footprints, and that, according to his mathematical model, "collapse" would still continue. This is patently absurd, because if 100% of the mass went outside the footprint, 0% would be left to push down on the intact structure below. Following is the dialog between Bazant and me.

Dear Dr. Bazant,

Thank you for your detailed reply, there is a wealth of very entertaining material here. Short of you actually appearing in the documentary, this is the next best thing.

1) As for your statement "Dr. Greening has now candidly admitted that he has "no evidence" to support"..."your claim that >80% of the mass of each WTC tower remained inside the footprint during collapse", he told me he did not say that. Of course, the 80% is an approximate estimate, and, as he told me again, he agrees with us that it is reasonable .  

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.

Greening positively DID admit he has no evidence to support his position. See this article reprinting Greening emails.

1. Dr. Greening has now supplied you with a copy of the email correspondence in which he admitted he has no evidence to support the claim of a gravity collapse. I repeat and reassert my position that Dr. Greening admits he has no evidence of a gravity collapse (i.e. no evidence of stacked up floors, no evidence of a large pile, no evidence of filled up basements, no evidence of >80% inside the footprint, etc.). I repeat my request to you to provide any evidence you have. Until then, "no evidence" is the word.

Despite the length of your reply, you have not directed me to credible evidence for these things. You have instead directed me to newspaper articles, and reports of landfill tonnage. Dr. Wood has made known the truckloads of dirt and landfill that were brought IN to ground zero, beginning right away. Other than attempting to smother an ongoing process of molecular dissociation, no explanation has been offered for this occurrence. In any case, for the 2qoutgoing landfill tonnage to have any meaning, this incoming material would need to be accounted for.

2) The estimate of 20% mass ejection rate is verified by our comparisons with the video record. If the ejection rate were higher than 20%, the match of video record would get worse, though not much worse.. But even if the ejection rate were 100%, the calculated motion of the top part would still be much slower than the free fall, as we checked long ago, of course.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.

2. Your observation of the video record indicates that only 20% of the mass went outside the tower footprint? Really? This would mean that you observe 80% of the mass staying inside the footprint. Where do you see that? I have studied every video, and all I see is towers turning to dust and exploding outwards. Can you direct me to any video which depicts any part of the towers falling down inside the footprint?

Sir, in my (non-expert) opinion the "ejection rate" cannot go up to 100%, because this would leave zero mass to push downward on the intact building. I will also note that this very issue was debated at length with Greening, and Greening maintains an upper limit of 20% ejection before "collapse" halts. However, I will note the professional disagreement between the two of you, and will certainly make mention of the fact that you believe a gravity collapse can continue while ejecting 100% of the mass outside the footprint.

This kind of new-physics makes me glad I stuck to music in college. I would have never been able to get my mind around a mass-free collapse.

3) On the other hand, from the numerous parameter studies that we have done, some of which are found in my paper with Verdure, one finds that the variations of the mass ejection ratio have a negligible effect on the overall duration of collapse (causing a difference of 0.15 second at most). This is further verified by the seismic record. The explanation is that the decrease of the resisting force due to an increase of the mass ejection ratio is approximately compensated by the configurational force calculated as the derivative of the energy needed to accelerate the mass for ejection.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.

3. This is begging the question and assuming the conclusion. You're reasoning that the greater the lateral ejection, the greater the downward force that must have caused this ejection. Thus, although the mass of the remaining material is less, you say, the downward force is greater, and so the two compensate for one another.

Assuming a gravity collapse, the only explanation for lateral ejection is that some of the downward force due to gravity is redirected to move material sideways. The more ejection, the greater the downward force must have been, immediately prior to the lateral ejection. Under this logic, the more lateral ejection, the more energy pushing downwards, the more destruction to the intact building, and the faster the collapse.

Under this logic, the events at Hiroshima could be described as a gravity driven collapse. We observe tremendous lateral ejection, and reason that this tremendous energy must have come from the force of falling mass, redirected sideways. The greater the lateral ejection, the greater the downward force must have been, and the easier to explain the flattened buildings. Considering the radius of lateral ejection at Hiroshima, I suspect that the "configurational force calculated as the derivative of the energy needed to accelerate the mass" would easily explain how a gravity-driven collapse of a single building could wipe out a city.

OK? This is patent nonsense, and you know it. The observed lateral ejection requires an energy input, which could be gravitational potential energy, or it could be explosives and weapons of some kind, we don't know right away. We could assume a gravity collapse to test the idea, but if we run into an absurdity, we must abandon the assumption and try something new. You have already demonstrated that your assumption leads to an absurdity. I.E., your assumption allows for 100% of the mass to be ejected out of a gravity-driven collapse. HELLO??! Is anybody home? Dr. Bazant, when you got to the part in #2 about 100% of the mass going over the side, and this INCREASES the amount of energy available to destroy the intact building, THAT DIDN'T MAKE YOU WONDER ABOUT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS? Not even a little?


4) The seismic record provides further evidence. Since the heavy objects ejected out of the tower would experience an almost free fall, which is much faster than the front of crush-down, one would have to expect the strongest ground motion to occur well before our calculated collapse time. Nevertheless, the seismic record shows that the strongest ground motion does match our calculated collapse time. This again shows that a majority of the mass must have been falling within the tower perimeter during the crush-down.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.

4. I have no training in seismology per se, but I do understand that seismographs plot waveform amplitude against time. In my professional work as a music composer, I routinely use software which depicts sound recordings as waveform amplitude against time. The amount of detail and complexity in a waveform can be seen. A very low amplitude waveform will naturally lack the detail present in a higher amplitude waveform. The "gain" can be increased on a low amplitude waveform to bring it up to a higher amplitude, but it will never present the same amount of high frequency detail present in a waveform which was recorded at a high level to begin with. Thus, I can see the difference between a sound that actually was loud, and one which was quiet and had its amplitude increased later.

The seismographs from 9/11 lack detail. They have far less detail than other seismographs of similar amplitude from the New York earthquake in January 2001. They remind me very, very much of music waveforms which have been artificially boosted in amplitude. Based on this, I feel confident in saying that the seismographs from 9/11 are not reliable.

5) A high lateral ejection on impact occurs only when an impacted layer is non-porous and non-compressible. But the stories are nearly empty. In this sense, the stories are more like a rigid foam (in which case a compaction with no lateral displacement is known to occur at impact), and not like dense gravel (for which such lateral displacement does occur). So, as we checked long ago, a high lateral ejection ratio cannot be justified mechanics of highly porous media.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.

5. I've had enough of your lateral ejections. See 2 and 3.

6) The debris profile seen after the collapse cannot really reflect the true mass ejection ratio because, during the impact on the ground and during the crush-up phase, most of the debris that was falling within the perimeter must have been pushed to the sides after hitting the ground. Simple soil mechanics-type calculations, taking into account the known friction coefficient of rubble masses, verify that.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D

6. You're again assuming the conclusion and working backwards. It "must have" gone to the sides after the "collapse" was over? You don't even have any evidence that this falling material remained macroscopic, nor that it remained in the footprint during the collapse. Whatever material "must have" done assuming a gravity collapse is not relevant because I'm not willing to make that assumption. Once we remove your assumption of a gravity collapse, everything you say falls apart.

7) The dust cloud is expanding rapidly because the exiting air attains a near-sonic velocity at the exit from the tower.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.

7. Again, unsupported assumptions. Do you have any evidence that falling material was moving that fast? I see no evidence that most of the falling material was even macroscopic, much less that is was moving near the speed of sound. Evidence, please.

8) Why didn't you try to get a record of the weight of debris transported by trucks from the site, and its mass at the deposit site? You could have easily seen your speculations about the small mass of the pile to be erroneous.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.

8. Ryan Mackey and Mark Roberts provided me with the Fresh Kills numbers long ago. At the time, I questioned the validity. It's very easy to fudge numbers on a garbage report. As mentioned, Dr. Wood has informed us that innumerable truckloads of dirt and landfill were brought IN to ground zero. Amounts going back out must include records of how much was trucked IN. They don't, and we reject this line of evidence for those reasons. They are contradicted by the photographic and video record, which are more reliable.

9) We did, of course, examine the photos. By comparing several different photos with a map of the site, matching the lines of sight tangent to the pile top to various points of known coordinates on the surrounding building, and using elementary surveyors's trigonometry, it is not difficult to map the height of the pile. If you have doubts, do this exercise, or hire a surveyor.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.

9. OK. Let's do the exercise! Here is a photo across the area of WTC1. We see WTC6 in the background. It is 8 stories tall. We can see all 8 stories. Therefore, the debris on the ground is <1 story. In fact, it barely covers the ground. Let me point out that this photo was taken on 9/11. Do I really need to draw lines? Do you see the humans?

What pile? Where did the building go?

10) Regarding the amount of debris pile after collapse, many newspaper articles and several formal publications mentioned that the height of debris pile was about 5-6 stories, e.g.:
[1] Landrigan, P. J. et al, “Health and Environmental Consequences of the World Trade Center Disaster.” Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 112, Number 6, May 2004. and
[2] Jameson, J. R. “September 11, 2001: Then and Now.” The online Journal of Issues in Nursing, ANA, Vol 7. No. 3, 2002.
Have you ever seen that towering huge pile of rubble? What I saw myself while visiting the site confirms that.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.

10. No, I've never seen that "towering huge pile of rubble". Dr. Greening told me to look at a photo, and "use my imagination". Where exactly was this pile of rubble? I spent a month building a website called "Hunt the Rubble". I couldn't find big piles anywhere. Please direct me to the big huge piles. Forgive me. When I see photos like the above, I simply don't believe you. What piles?

11) One must also take into account that the "bathtub", about 20 m (over 6 stories) deep, and of a much bigger area than the tower footprints, was full of compacted debris.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.

11. Do you have any evidence that the bathtub was filled with debris? Evidence please. Greening has already admitted he has "no evidence". I've seen pictures of the empty basement, undamaged trains, intact retail stores etc.

12) Apparently you have not time to reach understanding of our analysis of fragmentation and pulverization, and have not studied the theory of comminution, which is perfectly well established. It is simply inconcievable that most of the mass of the tower would have been turned to dust during the collapse, either due to supposed explosives or to impact energy. Our calculations of the particle size distribution and their total mass do not disagree with any observations.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.

12. Excuse me? Your calculations completely disagree with the observation that the rubble pile is <1 story tall? (See above picture, one more time).

Finally, I agree whole-heartedly with one of your statements. It IS simply inconcievable that most of the mass of the tower would have been turned to dust during the collapse, either due to supposed explosives OR to impact energy. Correct. This is what led Drs. Wood and Reynolds to conclude that it was not a gravity collapse, nor was it conventional explosives. Correct. Brilliant. NOW we're getting somewhere.

Finally, let me say that if you read our papers carefully, if you looked carefully at the parametric studies in the diagrams in my paper with Verdure (or if you hired a graduate student in structural mechanics to do that for you), you could have arrived at the above explanations yourself.

Except if you would have some truly new important points to raise in regard to what you call a "documentary", please take me out of your mailing list. I do not have time to waste. I have more serious projects to work on than the WTC, which has merely been a hobby for me.

-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.

Fairly presenting the idea that the World Trade Center was destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons is certainly a truly new and important point, and is certainly in my documentary. Thus, you are still on my email list, and you are still cordially invited to sit for an interview, and financial compensation is available to you for your time, should you choose to participate. We are now in the editing stage, so an interview would have to be arranged as soon as possible. Getting you on tape discussing the possibility of 100% mass ejection, would be priceless.


Ace Baker

Can Big Secrets Be Kept?

One tactic used by Official Conspiracy Theorists is to claim that secrets cannot be kept among large amounts of people for very long. There would have to be a leak, say they. I say rubbish. Secrets small, medium and large are kept indefinitely. All the time. To prove this, I will ask any who disagree this simple question:

What are the accomplishments of the NSA?

The National Security Agency (NSA) has been around since 1952, but its very existence was a secret for decades. The official joke was "NSA = No Such Agency". Nowadays, the NSA is acknowledged to exist. We know it is under the control of the executive branch, and is involved in spying on foreign governments. We know they have about 30,000 employees. 

But what have they actually done in, say, the last 30 years?

30,000 employees x 40 hours/week x 50 weeks / year x 30 years = 1.8 billion man-hours. That's a lot of something. But what? What have they done? 30,000 is a LOT of people, a whole lot more than the number required to pull off 9/11. THEY know what they do. Why don't we know? 

Because . . . it's a secret. 

How much does the NSA spend? That information is: CLASSIFIED. "CLASSIFIED" is government-speak for "it's a secret". There must be a lot of folks who know the NSA budget. Certainly the employees know how much they personally spend on their various activities. Yet, no leaks. 

How is it that nobody can tell me the answers to these questions? 30,000 people, many decades. No answers. Secrets kept. Big secrets, many people, long time, no leaks. 

In fact, the same could be said for anything "CLASSIFIED". Where are the plans for a nuclear weapon? Not a simplified conceptual schematic, like this. But an actual manufacture specification? We know such plans exist.  

People who have top secret clearance have their responsibilities made very clear to them. They are under orders to keep secrets. It is a very high stakes game. The rewards are quite handsome. Punishments for violations are very severe. 

Do you want to prove me wrong? Simple. Send me some top-secret documents. 

Do you want to understand how the truth of 9/11 could be kept under wraps indefinitely? Simple. It's CLASSIFIED.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Ghostplane Study

Under Construction. I need to upload the hi-resolution copy of the video somewhere. 

The Ghostplane
Testing Explanatory Hypotheses 
for the CNN-Hezarkhani Video

By Alexander “Ace” Baker



The CNN video of a Boeing 767 entering the south World Trade Tower was allegedly shot by amateur Michael Hezarkhani from Battery Park, on the southern tip of Manhattan Island. Anomalies have long fueled skepticism about its authenticity. For example, the plane appears to enter the tower effortlessly, with no bending, twisting, buckling, or slowing, hence the moniker, "Ghostplane". Various explanatory hypotheses have emerged. This is an effort to evaluate them.


Determine how Ghostplane was created.


Present the best-quality version of Ghostplane for public examination. Gather and state the existing explanatory hypotheses. Present and discuss all relevant observations about the Ghostplane video. Interview prominent proponents of each hypothesis. Research and discuss all relevant physics and technologies. Compare visual data in Ghostplane to other available videos and photos of the depicted event (Satisfy “requirement of total evidence”). Assimilate findings.

Assign to each observation a value from 0-8 on the basis of how well or how poorly the observation is explained by each hypothesis.

0 = impossible
1 = very unlikely, but not quite impossible
2 = unlikely, but certainly not impossible
3 = slightly less likely than neutral
4 = neutral, that is no determination can be made one way or the other,
5 = slightly more likely than neutral
6 = likely, but certainly not certain
7 = very likely, but not quite certain
8 = certain

To evaluate, insert the above verbiage into the following sentence, for each observation and each hypothesis. The most accurate one prevails, and the corresponding value is assigned.

It is _______________ that this observation is explained by this hypothesis.

Add up the values for each hypothesis. Create tables and graphs displaying results. Decide which hypothesis has the greatest likelihood of being correct, by what margin, and discuss. Solicit review from other interested researchers.

Hypotheses to Test

1. Official Story. Ghostplane depicts Untied Airlines flight 175 crashing into the south face of WTC2 at around 550 m.p.h., killing all on board and causing the observed damage to the tower. The video is 100% authentic.

2. Plane Swap. Ghostplane depicts a real 767 aircraft, but not UA175. The aircraft was specially modified to produce explosions, and/or fire a missile at the tower simultaneous with striking it, causing the observed damage to the tower. The video is 100% authentic.

3. Garage Door. The wall of the tower was pre-weakened in the area of the impact. Ghostplane depicts a real 767 aircraft, either UA175 or other, entering the weakened area. The video is 100% real.

4. Compositing. Ghostplane depicts an airplane image composited onto what is otherwise authentic footage. The observed explosions are real, coming from within the tower. There was no real flying object of any kind.

5. Compositing Plus. A real flying object or objects, such as a Cruise Missile, Global Hawk, or a formation of UAVs struck the tower and caused the damage. Ghostplane depicts an image of a Boeing 767 composited into the footage, covering up the real flying object(s).

6. Hologram. Ghostplane depicts a real flying object, such as a missile, projecting a 3D holographic image of a 767 around itself in real time. The flying object caused the damage to the tower. The video is 100% authentic, in that it is unaltered photography of a live hologram.

7. Future Combat Systems. Ghostplane is completely animated. Not only the plane, but also the sky, the towers, the explosions, the other buildings, the trees and bushes, were all assembled digitally as a multi-layered animation. Ghostplane was fabricated using "Future Combat Systems" (or similar) employing such algorithms as "semantic photo completion". Ghostplane has no basis in reality at all, and could have been created at almost any time prior to 9/11.

Observations to Explain

1. Ghostplane is first shown to the public on CNN after midnight on 9/11, some 15 hours after the fact.
2. At first blush, Ghostplane looks realistic. We see photo-realistic buildings, plants, sky, a plane, and explosions.
3. The bottom of the plane appears to be gray in color, despite being in full sunlight.
4. The plane appears to travel 500-600 mph.
5. A bright flash of light appears for approximately 1/30 of a second, near the nose of the airplane, on the video frames immediately prior to the airplane beginning to enter the tower.
6. A series of discreet, white-colored explosions occur on the wall of the tower. The first two correspond to the placement of the airplane engines, later ones occur at various points along the wall, forming the shape of an airplane.
7. The airplane passes into the wall of the building with no apparent slowing.
8. The airplane passes into the wall of the building with no apparent damage to itself.
9. Video frames which depict the wings of the airplane having passed beyond the perimeter of the tower, show no observable damage to the tower wall.
10. An orange and black “fireball” explodes outwards from within the tower, approximately 1-2 seconds after the airplane appears to have completely entered the building.
11. The fireball appears to expand as explosions normally do. There is no observable rotating air mass within the fireball.

12. After an edit in the video (thus an unknown amount of time), a plane-shaped hole in the tower is observed.
13. During a recorded phone call with researcher Jeff Hill, videographer Michael Hezarkhnai refused to discuss details of his location, etc. on advice of his attorney. Hezarkhani suggested that Hill contact CNN.

Requested Experts

Rosalee Grable
Simon Shack
Anthony Lawson
Jules Naudet
Gideon Naudet
Steven Wright
Jim Fetzer
Morgan Reynolds
Mete Sozen
Voicu Popescu
Eric Salter
Rick Rajter
Fred BS Registration
Jeff Hill
Judy Wood
Steven Jones
Michael Hezarkhani
Gerard Holmgren
Still Diggin
Jeff King
Andrew Johnson
Nico Haupt

Questions for Experts

Do you agree or disagree with each observation?
Do you have any other relevant observations that I have missed?
Please give what you consider the most likely explanation for each observation.
Which hypothesis do you endorse (if any)?
Do you have a different hypothesis that I have not included?
Are there any other experts that you think I should consult?
Please offer any additional comments.

Technical Notes

The video used for this analysis comes from the DVD “CNN – America Remembers”. Ordinary American television conforms to the NTSC standard. It is 29.97 frames per second, and 480 scan lines tall. Each video frame is comprised of two “fields”. Each field is 240 scan lines, one displaying only the odd numbered scan lines, the other only the even. Combining alternating fields is called “interlacing”. Fields are displayed one after the other, 59.94 fields per second.

Digital video may be interlaced, or it may display entire frames at once, known as "progressive". To display correctly on a computer, NTSC must be "de-interlaced" and converted into progressive. There are three basic techniques which may be employed to do this.

1. Line doubling. Each even field is made into a progressive frame by doubling the height of each scan line. Each odd field is discarded. Frame rate remains 29.97.
2. Field blending. Each odd-even field pair is blended together into one progressive frame. Frame rate remains 29.97.
3. Frame rate doubling. Each line in each field is doubled in height, for both odd AND even fields. Each field is made into a complete progressive frame, thus doubling the quantity of frames. Frame rate is now 59.94.

For analysis purposes, the correct choice is number 3, because no video data is lost, and all video data remains discreet, unblended. I have made a progressive frame from each field of the Ghostplane DVD video. This was done by extracting the DVD footage into a “.VOB” file using “Mac-the-Ripper” software. VOB file was imported into “MPEG Streamclip” software and exported as a DV stream, still interlaced. This interlaced DV stream was imported into “Adobe After Effects”, the frame rate was changed from 29.97 to 59.94, and exported as a Quicktime with no compression.

Copyright and Fair Use

Exemption from copyright protection is claimed under the doctrine of “Fair Use”.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Evan Fairbanks

Evan Fairbanks

Maybe some of the blue from Ghostplane magically leaked out into another video. On September 11, 2001, professional videographer Evan Fairbanks was working at the Trinity Church, on Liberty Street, just southeast of the twin towers. He shot a very strange version of the South Tower event.

The Fairbanks video is hand-held, camera very low to the ground, aiming up at the towers. A man, rumored to be an FBI agent, is in the foreground. The man does not seem to notice what would undoubtedly be the screaming sound of jet engines. Viewers of the video don’t notice any sound either, because the video is completely silent. A plane enters from behind a building at the upper-left of the screen, crosses, and neatly slips into the tower. It’s another “ghostplane” – no crash physics at all. The tower explodes, and only then does the man react.

At the bottom of the frame, behind the man, is a car windshield. In the windshield is seen a reflection of the towers. This presented a nice challenge for the compositors. A copy of the plane had to be flipped vertically, then distorted so as to mimic the naturally curved windshield reflection. Such distortion filters are standard faire in digital compositing software programs.

The color of the Fairbanks video has been adjusted. The colors are over-saturated, and shifted towards blue. The sky is a striking cobalt blue - quite beautiful, but unnatural. In digital compositing, tweaking the colors can be a way to help blend disparate elements which originally don’t quite look like they belong together.

Where is the audio? No audio has ever accompanied any showing of it. For a long time, it was claimed that Fairbanks turned his video over to the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey, who gave him back a copy with no audio. In a January 2008 phone interview with Jeff Hill, Fairbanks now says he accidentally forgot to record audio in the first place.

As with the Hezarkhani video, the biggest problem with Fairbanks is the complete lack of crash physics. It looks fake. Fairbanks himself has admitted as much. In one televised interview he said, “The image of that plane just coming into the frame and just disappearing into the side – into the south side of the tower - as if a floor had been hollowed out and it was a hangar that it was just landing in. We’ve seen these images in movies and we know that it’s all artificial, and that Hollywood makes it.”

In another interview Fairbanks said of the airplane image, “It just disappeared. It disappeared like a bad special effect.”

He’s right. The plane did disappear like a bad special effect. A good special effect would have been looked more realistic. The plane would smash up against the side of the much stronger tower. The nose of the plane would have crumpled, and the whole plane would have rotated around. Flaming pieces would have broken off and fallen earthward. It would have been a big mess, like a real plane crash.

Broadcast Quality

Broadcast Quality

Ordinarily, television news stations keep archives of all significant news events. For a standard fee, clips are available to use in such things as documentary movies. Broadcast-quality copies of 9/11 airplane videos, however, appear unavailable at any price. In March 2008, I contacted WNYW television and requested to license a broadcast-quality copy of Chopper 5 for use in my upcoming documentary film. Isaura Nunez, head of public affairs fro WNYW, confirmed that their archive department did have the footage, but declined my request, saying only “Unfortunately, we will be unable to participate in this project”.

It’s not just me. Broadcast-quality Chopper 5 footage has never appeared in any documentary, or anywhere at all after 9/11. The videos that survive are all lower quality versions posted on the internet. Broadcast-quality would allow even better analysis than what has been presented here. If you are still inclined to be skeptical about no-planes, I ask you: Why would the media conceal the best versions of these videos, if not to cover-up evidence of digital compositing?

I urge everyone to sign this petition requesting broadcast-quality copies of Chopper 5, and all significant 9/11 news videos.

Psychic Predictions of WTC7 "Collapse"

Psychic Predictions of WTC7 “Collapse”

Though Chopper 5 had been cleansed, another serious blunder was discovered in those news archives. At around 5:00 p.m. on 9/11, BBC anchor Phillip Hayton announced the “Salomon Brothers building collapsing”. Hayton explained “this was not as a result of a new attack, but because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attacks”. Solomon Brothers is another name for the infamous World Trade Center building 7. Indeed, WTC7 did completely collapse, straight down, in free-fall time, exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition. But get this: WTC7 collapsed at 5:20 p.m., 20 minutes after the BBC announced it.

Hayton throws the conversation to BBC reporter Jane Standley in New York, and as she delivers her story, WTC7 is clearly seen standing behind her. A graphic across the bottom of the screen reads “The 47 storey Salomon Brothers Building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed”.

Back on the left side of the pond, FOX-5 Washington D.C. also made a psychic prediction of the WTC7 “collapse”. Just before the demolition, anchor Tracey Neal announces “ . . . we are getting word from New York right now that another building has collapsed. I understand that this is a 47 story building.” They switch to a live picture of the World Trade Center area, ground zero is fuming furiously, but WTC7 is standing straight and tall. “Is that smoke coming from this third collapse?” wonders Neale.

Neale is expressing hope that the building had been evacuated, when suddenly WTC7 begins dropping straight down, so her co-anchor says, “Take a look at that right hand side of the screen”. Neale concurs, “It’s going down right now”.

Scrambling for a way to cover such an obvious screw up, the co-anchor ad-libs, “We are seeing video today that only Hollywood could have produced at another time”.

The premature announcements of this unprecedented collapse are no less suspicious than if someone had announced the assassination of President Kennedy 20 minutes before it happened. Were the BBC and FOX fed the official script a little too early, or did the demolition of WTC7 go off a little too late? When news of the early report of WTC7 broke in February of 2007, the entire news archive was deleted from, flushed down the memory hole.

The Miracle Zoom

The Miracle Zoom

After the 5 seconds of wide shot, with no plane in it, the camera then zooms part way in, zooms in some more, then finally zooms all the way in, framing a nice shot of the twin towers. Now it at least looks like the chopper has arrived “at the scene”. One video frame after the final zoom, an airplane enters the screen. What are the odds of that?

Miracle Zoom. Frame 406 is the end of the zoom in. The plane enters on frame 407.

If I was operating a video camera, even if I knew a plane was coming, and I was trying to finish a zoom one frame before that plane entered the picture, I doubt I could do it more than 1 out of 100 times.

This “Miracle Zoom” is a huge coincidence if we are to believe in a real plane, but a practical necessity for video compositing. Overlaying a moving airplane image on a stable, not-zooming video is easy. Doing so on a zooming shot is quite tricky, and impossible to do in real time, if it is to be a convincing fake.

Fox Five Fakery - Conclusion


The perpetrators of 9/11 could not afford a big airplane mess. A big mess means lots of clues, like aircraft parts with serial numbers. A better strategy would be to explode a plane-shaped hole, set off a big pyrotechnic fireball, and composite the plane in. The videos all show a brief white flash just as the nose of the airplane appears to hit the wall. This flash is real. It may or may not have been a necessary part of the explosion sequence which followed, but surely the flash was handy synchronizing the airplane images. In each video that shows the plane entering the tower, the flash frame is the last frame before the plane starts to disappear into the layer mask.

Why not use real planes? Why would the perpetrators risk faking the airplane hits, when they could remote control real planes into the towers? There are several good answers for this, and when you put them together, video fakery is the only solution that makes any sense. Briefly, real planes leave real evidence. They could never risk electronically hijacking the real flights 11 and 175, because the pilots would have ample time to make cell phone calls and say, “Help! We’ve been electronically hijacked!”. If they switched the planes and flew unmanned military drones into the towers, they would never just enter the towers. They would crash. Parts would bounce off and fall down. Aircraft parts have serial numbers. If the targeting was off even a little, it would spoil the effect of the “building collapses” that were to follow. And what if the plane missed the target just a little more, clipping a wing, say, and careening into the streets? Oh no! Where are all the passengers? What is this?

Plus, there is an even stronger reason to use video fakery. Video fakery involves news media complicity from the outset. Having blood on the hands of the news media from the beginning would ensure their cooperation over the long run.

A lot of people have been trying to solve 9/11 for a long time now. How can the majority of people be convinced that 9/11 was an inside job? We know the twin towers and building 7 were brought down by some kind of controlled demolition. But the disintegration of the towers was so bizarre, so powerful, and so unprecedented as to defy explanation. Casual observers misinterpret this lack of a positive demolition theory to mean that demolition is unproven. This is wrong of course, but when you add that to the never-ending avalanche of government-issue disinformation, 9/11 truth remains a hard sell.

No-planes is the solution to 9/11. No-planes proves demolition. No-planes proves media complicity. No-planes proves totalitarianism. No-planes proves shadow government.

We now have no choice but to reconsider our entire concept of both government and the news media. Clearly, the so-called mainstream news media is nothing other than the propaganda arm of the military-industrial-banking syndicate. This is an ongoing interest group that transcends any current presidential administration. These people profit immensely from war and other big-government programs. They appear hell-bent on taking over the entire world.

There is good news. All governments are completely dependent on the support of their citizens to do what they do. That support is ultimately founded upon the acceptance of a set of ideas, nothing more than some ideas, indoctrinated assumptions rarely questioned. Perhaps it is a good time to begin questioning them. In theory, a set of ideas in your mind can disintegrate faster than the twin towers, and become replaced by a new and different set of ideas.

There is bad news. A lot of people enjoy war. Not the people who actually have to fight it, nor those who have to pay for it. But some people don’t have to fight it or pay for it, and actually make a lot of money on the deal. They believe that false-flag terror is necessary. They support what is going on. They know perfectly well what went down on 9/11. They don’t want a different set of ideas. They like the present set of ideas just fine.

On 9/11, “your” government and “your” news media showed cartoons and passed it off as live news. What you choose to do with that knowledge is up to you.

Gray is Not Blue

Gray is not Blue

The bottom of a United Airlines jet is blue.

“UA175” was banking left in full sunlight. The round fuselage ought to show areas of highlight, of shadow, and of normal color.

Yet the bottom of this ghostplane is gray, not blue. Why? The rest of the video shows normal color – green trees, tan buildings, red brick, blue sky, etc.

Magically Healing Columns

Magically Healing Columns

Let’s consider what appear to be magically healing steel columns.

We know that at some point in time, an airplane-shaped hole appeared in the side of the tower. Here is a series of frames from the Ghostplane video. In the second-to-the-last frame, the wings of the airplane have already passed through the wall of the building. Yet we cannot see any damage to the wall.

Is it possible that that airplane-shaped hole is already present, but the video quality is too poor to see it? No. The last frame in the sequence is from the same video, after an edit, and when the camera was zoomed out even more. If anything, the picture quality would be a little worse than in the previous frames. Smoke now obscures part of the right side of the opening, but clearly we can see the gaping hole in the wall.

There is more than enough resolution in the pictures to see whether or not columns have broken away to reveal the dark interior of the building. Therefore, the columns were broken some time after the image of the wing appeared to pass through the wall. Therefore the “wings” of the “airplane” did not break the columns. Something else did.

Suspiciously, we do not ever see the columns breaking and the hole forming in the side of the tower. We see a number of discreet, white explosions coming from inside the wall, in the outline of an airplane. More than a second later, we see a huge orange-and-black fireball exploding from deep within the building. In real plane crashes, the fuel in the wings explodes within 1/15 of a second of impact, so the tardy 9/11 South Tower fireball is hardly convincing. As the fireball begins to die down, the Ghostplane video is edited. An unknown amount of time elapses, only afterwards is the plane-shaped hole revealed.

As far as I know, there is no video record in existence of what happened to either tower approximately 10 seconds after each fireball exploded. Why not? We are to believe that many of the second strike videos were captured by amateurs, but we also know that cameras were relentlessly seized by “officials” on the scene. Is it really possible that nobody managed to capture the formation of the plane-shaped holes? Are we to think this is just another amazing coincidence?

It might be nice to see an un-edited copy of the video from the original videographer, Michael Hezarkhani, or at least ask him some questions. In 2007 9/11 research super-sleuth Jeff Hill called Hezarkhani on the phone and tried. Hezarkhani flat refused to discuss it on advice of his attorney. Allegedly Hezarkhani was a tourist in New York on 9/11. Why won’t he talk about his very famous amateur video?

No Crash Physics

under construction

No Crash Physics

The Hezarkhani / CNN video has become known as “Ghostplane” with good reason. The image of the airplane glides effortlessly into the side of the tower. It does not break, twist, bend, crumple or even slow down.

Passenger aircraft such as this Boeing 767 are mostly aluminum. They are hollow, and built to be as light as possible. The side of the Trade Tower was a dense grid of structural steel box columns, tied together with steel plates. It is built to be as strong as possible, and as flexible as needed.  The floors of the tower were 4" steel-reinforced concrete slabs poured into steel pans, held up by cross-braced steel floor trusses. We are to believe that this airplane met those floors edge-on, and all those steel columns, at more than 500 m.p.h., and not a single piece broke off and fell to the ground?

The Force Paradox

This is inspired by Gerard Holmgren's "The Resistance Paradox". Gerard Holmgren made history when he coined the term "Resistance Paradox" in relation to the Twin Towers. 

In my own words now, as I understand it. According to the official story, the top part of each twin tower crushed itself, and the entire intact undamaged structure below it, into fine powder, in something just a little bit longer than free fall time. Fast "collapse" times require very low resistance from below, because the greater the resistance, the more energy is absorbed by the resisting part, the less energy is available to accelerate falling mass downward, the slower the collapse time. 

On  the other hand, the building and all its contents were converted into very fine powder. Mechanical crushing requires extremely high resistance. A hammer requires an anvil. A mortar requires a pestal. You can smash a piece of ice into small chips with a hammer, but it better be sitting on a hard floor.  Imagine trying to shatter a piece of ice while in free fall. It won't work.

And then imagine that while in free fall, you not only manage to shatter the ice, but shatter the hammer as well. It makes no sense whatsoever. As a rule, collisions between objects do not cause mutual annihilation. Clearly, the twin towers were blown up. Period. 

No official airplane theory exists. To the extent that it does,  it is argued there that mass times velocity gives total kinetic energy, thus the impacting airplane is equivalent to so many tons of TNT. This treats the entire airplane as a single mass, a single solid object.

But, in explaining why the the back part of the plane does not appear to slow down, the official theorists say that the plane is more like a liquid, or a constellation of very small parts, unconnected. It atomizes, completely shatters, thus relieving the back part of any obligation to slow down.  

Just as in the case of the twin towers, the official story is trying to have it both ways. The plane is both strong enough to to act like a solid in terms of the total kinetic energy, but weak enough to act like a liquid in terms of the deceleration of the back part. It makes no sense. 

To actually think about it correctly, we must consider the power of the impact. Power is force over time. That is force divided by time. The longer a period of time over which a force is spread out, the less power it delivers, and the less destruction it causes. A burning log releases more energy than a stick of dynamite. The reason a stick of dynamite can destroy your fireplace, while a burning log cannot, is that the dynamite releases its energy in a much smaller period of time than does the fire. 

If indeed the airplane is weak enough to atomize on impact, which I think is basically correct based on the Sandia F-4 video, then it would be like a bug on the windshield to a twin tower. Much of it would turn to confetti, large parts like wing flaps or tail sections would bounce off. Engines, being steel and titanium, are strong, and might make a significant dent or maybe sever a column. A plane-shaped hole is strictly ruled out. 

Ghostplane shows no crash physics at all. I encourage you to read Morgan Reynolds’ several articles on crash physics, the early ones having come after being tutored by Gerard Holmgren, one of the greatest minds in the history of 9/11 research, and also one of the best blues guitarists since B.B. King. 

Dr. Reynolds is absolutely correct in his physics argument. Unfortunately, >99% of humans are scientific idiots. The government experts can lie bullshit numbers about "total kinetic energy" and "moment of inertia" and make hilarious computer animations until the cows . . .die . . .and become hamburgers. 

On the other hand, the problems with the Chopper 5 video can be understood by everyone. There was no plane. No plane solves 9/11. 


under construction


The clearest of all 9/11 airplane videos is the one by amateur Michael Hezarkhani. It was first aired on CNN around midnight on 9/11, and later appeared in the DVD “CNN - America Remembers”. It was shot from south of the World Trade Center, in Battery Park (or possibly from a ferry boat in the water just beyond the park).

Wake Vortex

Wake Vortex

All fixed wing aircraft produce an effect called “Wake Vortex”. Wake vortex is directly related to the amount of lift generated by each wing. The extremely high air pressure from under the wing collides with extremely low pressure from above the wing to create a strong, tornado-like rotating air mass. This is a stable phenomenon, and it can persist for over a minute. The presence of wake vortex is the reason why even the busiest airports wait at least 5 minutes between landings on a given runway. Wake vortices are always present behind a flying airplane. Ordinarily, of course, they are invisible unless there are clouds, smoke or debris in the air.

Here is a photo of red smoke behind a small crop duster.

And here is a photo of curling cloud patterns far behind a soaring jetliner.

Here is some background research on wake vortex.

Now consider this image from the Naudet video.

This is less than 5 seconds after a Boeing 767 airplane supposedly flew right through this airspace at top speed. Where is the wake vortex?

Here is an image from the CNN-Hezarkhani "Ghostplane" video.

Again, what happened to the vortex? I have watched all the 9/11 airplane videos over and over again, and I invite the reader to do likewise. There is no evidence of the strong rotating air mass we know would have to be there. The obvious and only explanation is that while the explosions are real, the planes are fakes.

Fox Five Fakery - Introduction


Careful consideration of the 9/11 news broadcast footage provides overwhelming evidence that no airplanes crashed into the twin towers. The various videos showing a plane crashing into the south world trade tower are video composites. Each one has had a flying airplane image inserted into what is otherwise a legitimate shot of an exploding building.

There were two alleged airplane crashes in New York on 9/11: 

  • North Tower, 8:46 a.m. 
  • South Tower, 9:02 a.m. 

It is important to distinguish between:

  • Videos that were shown live 
  • Videos that appeared later. 
There was no live video of the North Tower event. The only video to show it with any clarity is the Naudet brothers’ documentary footage, first aired some 13 hours later. 

Two, and only two,  live news shots showed the South Tower event with any clarity – FOX Chopper 5 and ABC Chopper 7. Both show a plane entering the picture from the right side, crossing the screen, then disappearing behind the edge of a tower. None (Zero) of the live 9/11 airplane videos shows a plane hitting anything.

In the hours, days and months following 9/11, thirty or more so-called "amateur" videos emerged showing the South Tower event from various angles and distances, none as good as either Chopper 5 or Chopper 7. 

Chopper 5

under construction

Chopper 5

I begin with “Chopper 5” - live footage shot by the helicopter of station WNYW FOX-5, New York. As local anchor Jim Ryan and colleagues were commenting, this sequence was carried live over most of the FOX network.

And while other versions of the South Tower plane crash event were replayed endlessly, Chopper 5 was not - a big red flag. Chopper 5 is very dramatic footage of history’s defining moment, yet was never replayed, except once by CNN. During the one and only CNN replay, the plane path is completely covered up with a logo graphic extending about 1/3 of the way up the screen.

Could it be that Chopper 5 has something in it we’re not supposed to see? Fortunately, Chopper 5 was recorded on VHS tape by a few different people around the U.S. As it turns out, there is plenty in Chopper 5 we’re not supposed to see.

No Plane in the Wide Shot

No Plane in the Wide Shot

FOX 5 anchor Jim Ryan says, “As you look at the picture from our chopper now arriving at the scene . . .” But what is he talking about? The helicopter is over New Jersey, about 4 miles from the World Trade Center. It begins to hover, drifting slowly to the left. One trade tower is burning and smoking. Why would the pilot not be hurrying toward what is already the news story of the year?

While we ponder that, ponder this: There is no plane in the wide shot, and it ought to be there. We can determine where the plane should be at the beginning of Chopper 5 by noting where it is later on. I’ve numbered the frames and stabilized the end of the video to eliminate camera motion. The nose of the plane is about to touch the edge of the tower in frame 423. From frame 407 to frame 423, a time span of 16 frames, the plane covers the indicated distance.

16 x 26 = 416, so we know that over 416 frames, the plane would cover 26 times the distance that it did in 16 frames. 416 frames earlier than frame 423 is frame 7. I’ve matched up the scale and marked off 26 times the distance. So in frame 7, the plane should be in the circle, and it is not.

I have intentionally over-estimated the distance traveled by the plane during 416 frames. When matching the scale of the towers between the zoomed-out and zoomed-in versions, I left the zoomed-in version (with the plane) a little too large, if anything. Could the plane still be just beyond the edge of the picture? If we let the video play forward from frame 7, 163 frames (more than 5 seconds) go by before the camera begins to zoom in. That corresponds to about 10 of the line segments. Here is frame 170. The plane should be here, and it isn’t. The plane isn’t anywhere.

Could the plane could be hiding in the smoke plume from the burning North Tower? No. The alleged flight path of this plane, “UA175”, was from the southwest. The smoke was blowing decidedly toward the southeast. Viewed from the north, as in the above shot, we can clearly see that the alleged flight path was nowhere near the drifting smoke.

We can use a different method to corroborate the estimate of where the plane should be in the wide shot. We know that the actual distance from the northeast corner of the North Tower to the southwest corner of the South Tower is about 526 feet. Flight 175 was alleged to be traveling 542 mph according to the official government NIST report. That’s 795 feet per second. 416 frames of video is 13.9 seconds. So the plane would go 13.9 x 795 feet or 11,035 feet between frame 7 and frame 423. 11,035 ft./526 ft. = 20.97, call it 21. So, during the time span in question, the plane would travel 21 times the distance across the towers. The towers measure 18 pixels across. 18 pixels x 21 = 378 pixels.

Measuring 378 pixels to the right places the airplane almost exactly where the other method did - inside the the picture, right from the beginning. There is no plane.

The number one reason why Chopper 5 was not replayed is that there is no plane in the wide shot. This alone is proof positive that Chopper 5 is a composite. If it was a real plane, it most likely would have been present at frame one, well within the picture, and certainly would have appeared by frame 170. Although the plane would have been small, about 4 pixels in length, it would have clearly been visible.

Here are a series of frames from a video I made under very similar (but slightly worse) conditions. It was early in the morning, 5 miles from Los Angeles airport, shooting toward the sun, as was the case with Chopper 5. It was a clear day, as was 9/11, and the haze made the background almost white, just like 9/11. The plane is small, but you can see it in every single frame, without exception. It’s an unmistakable gray silhouette.

Unstable Motion

under construction - need to add pictures and diagrams. 

Unstable Motion

The miracle zoom and the missing plane are only the beginning of Chopper 5 oddities. Next is the unstable motion. A real plane flying through the air has very stable motion. Any changes in speed are very, very gradual. Video cameras scan images at an extremely consistent rate, 59.94 images every second. Therefore, a real plane on a stable video will move the same distance in every frame.

While the actual motion of an airplane is perfectly steady, certain random noise factors can affect the apparent motion of an airplane on video. I have exploited the presence of these noise factors to provide a scientific proof that the motion of the plane in Chopper 5 is too unstable to be real.

The noise factors that can influence the apparent motion of a moving airplane on video are:

1. Atmospherics
2. Video Resolution
3. Camera Motion
4. Measurement Error

If the air were perfectly transparent (which it isn’t), and if video had infinite resolution (which it doesn’t) and the camera was perfectly still (which it wasn’t) and if position measurements could be made with infinite precision (which they can’t), then the motion of the airplane would appear perfectly stable. Such perfect stability would be represented by a perfectly straight line on a graph of velocity over time.

In reality, the atmosphere can distort the apparent position of a plane a tiny bit, video resolution is only so good, the camera in Chopper 5 was moving, and there will be small errors in trying plot the exact position of the airplane in each frame.

All 4 of these are random errors. Each type of error adds to the deviation from perfect stability. These are as likely to be errant left as right, up as down. Such random errors tend to accumulate. They add up. Each error type will add to the total error, that is increase the deviation away from perfect stability. Each will make the graph line more jagged.

Therefore, if we can find a way to eliminate one source of error, while holding the other 3 sources of error perfectly constant, then we would expect to see the total error decrease. We would expect to see the graph line become less jagged. I have devised a method to do just that.

• Stabilize the video to subpixel accuracy, both X and Y.
• Catalog the distance each frame was moved in the stabilization process.
• Place a wireframe around the plane image frame by frame, going for best overall fit.
• Measure the change in airplane position (velocity) per frame, in both X and Y dimensions.
• Graph these position changes as “∆X Stabilized” and “∆Y Stabilized”.
• Calculate the “Raw” (un-stabilized) data by subtracting the distance each frame was moved from the velocity measurement of that frame.
• Graph these position changes as “∆X Raw” and “∆Y Raw”.
• Compare “Raw” graph line to the “Stabilized” graph line.

By doing this, we have subtracted the camera motion from the total error, while holding the other three error types perfectly constant. Any measurement error was held perfectly constant because the measurements were only made once. In a legitimate video, the stabilized graph line must be straighter, with less deviations from the norm, than the raw graph line. Here are various control cases which test the method. In each legitimate video, the graph line does indeed become more stable after stabilizing the video. Every time. The method does not fail.

In Chopper 5, however, the graph line becomes less stable after stabilizing the video. This simply cannot be a legitimate airplane video. Camera motion makes the apparent motion of any real airplane less stable. Therefore removing the camera motion must have the effect of reducing the instability. If it has the opposite effect, we know something is wrong.

Here is a video composite airplane crash that I found on the internet. I have no idea who made it. Using the above method, I compare raw versus stabilized data, and find that that airplane motion becomes shakier after removing the camera motion. Even if we ignore the fact that this jet airplane looks too small compared to the apartment building it crashes into, the velocity analysis is proof of video compositing. It has the same problem as Chopper 5.

Given sufficient time, a video compositor can correct motion problems. But Chopper 5 was shown live. There wasn’t time. The 9/11 perpetrators had to show us news helicopter shots, because if they didn’t, everyone would wonder where the news helicopters were. They were hoping the drifting helicopter shots would be steady enough so as to make the motion problems undetectable. Chopper 5 was almost that steady. But not quite.

Pinocchio's Nose

under construction

Pinocchio’s Nose

Overlaying a flying airplane image onto any video is easy. Videos are composited in layers. The flying airplane layer is prepared in advance. The airplane could be originally drawn on computer, or actual video of a real aircraft. Either way, the background is removed and the plane image sits on an otherwise transparent layer. Placing this layer on top of a second layer will make the plane appear to fly in front of everything else.

Making the plane appear to disappear behind the edge of a building requires adding a third layer, and using what’s called a “layer mask”. A layer mask defines areas of the screen where everything on that particular layer disappears. One way to create a mask is to draw a shape. Anything which goes inside the shape disappears. But compositing software can also create masks in real time based on differences in color and brightness. In Chopper 5, a mask was created to determine what was and was not “sky”.

Here, in Final Cut Pro, I’ve used luminance (brightness) to create a mask on video of the twin towers. Once correctly dialed in, the software has no difficulty distinguishing between the sky and everything else. We now have a total of 3 layers: The top layer is the towers with transparency instead of sky, the middle layer is the plane, and the bottom layer is the original video of the twin towers. Then all that needs to be done is to play the airplane layer. The plane crosses the sky, and disappears behind the tower.

Adding the plane and disappearing it inside the layer mask is easy. Trickier is to stop playing the airplane layer at the correct time. Stop it too soon, and the plane freezes or disappears in mid air. Stop it a little too late, and it will appear to slip out from the back side of the mask.

Unfortunately for the creators of Chopper 5, this is what happened. The airplane layer was played a little too long, and the nose of the airplane appeared to pop out from behind the tower. This has become known as “Pinocchio’s Nose” or “The Nose-Out”.

It is impossible that the nose cone of a real Boeing 767 could survive and pop out the back of the tower. It is hollow, made of plastic, and not designed to withstand any sort of impact. Plus, there is no “exit wound” on the tower where such an event would have occurred. Obviously the plane image was accidentally allowed to come out from behind the layer mask. The only alternative explanation is that what appears to be the nose of the plane is actually some sort of “dust explosion”. Yet the “dust explosion” is indistinguishable from the nose of the airplane.

Here are 6 cropped images, 3 are the nose of the airplane from before it appeared to enter the tower, 3 are from the nose-out event. 

Can you tell which are which? How would it be possible that a dust explosion could become a size, shape and color that are indistinguishable from the nose of the very airplane that just crashed on the other side of the building?

Fade to Black

Under Construction

Fade to Black

Evidently someone realized the nose-out error (a little too late), and faded down the entire picture to black, then faded back up once the airplane layer was turned off. It’s important to understand that this fade-to-black cannot be a signal interruption. To be sure, signal interruptions from news helicopters can and do happen, all the time. But they do not cause a fade to black. Rather, signal interruptions of this type will show up as “static”, or a “freeze frame”, or “pixelization”.

Above is a typical noise pattern as signal breaks up from a 9/11 news helicopter.

There were broadcast antennae on top of the North Tower, but these had nothing whatsoever to do with communications from any news helicopters. A news helicopter signal is sent up to a satellite by microwave, then relayed back down to the TV station.

A fade-to-black is done by pulling down a fader on a video console. Was it an accident? Yet another astonishing coincidence?Fox 5 weren’t the only ones to have “technical problems” right at the time of the second strike.

Here is the live sequence from CNN, which was showing a version of the ABC Chopper 7 footage. They too incorporate a quick fade to black, and a switch to a different angle, just as the “plane” is about to “impact”. Logically, either these fades were accidental or they were on purpose. What are the chances that two different networks both accidentally faded out picture, right at the time of history’s defining moment?

The Naudet brothers also captured the second “hit” from a different angle, but the frames which would show the “nose-out” event are edited out of the footage.



While other angles of the 2nd plane were replayed over and over again, on every network, the Chopper 5 footage was never replayed, except once on CNN a few minutes after the event. In the one and only replay, the airplane was covered up by logo graphics.

In 2005, an archive of 9/11 news videos appeared on the U.S. government site, “”. This included hundreds of hours of footage from September 11-13, from networks ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, and BBC. Mysteriously, the Chopper 5 video footage had been replaced. Though the original audio track featuring Jim Ryan and co. was unchanged, it now played under a completely different video sequence.

It could not be more obvious that the government and the news media are hiding something when it comes to Chopper 5.

Though Chopper 5 had been cleansed, another serious blunder was discovered in those news archives. At around 5:00 p.m. on 9/11, BBC anchor Phillip Hayton announced the “Salomon Brothers building collapsing”. Hayton explained “this was not as a result of a new attack, but because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attacks”. Solomon Brothers is another name for the infamous World Trade Center building 7. Indeed, WTC7 did completely collapse, straight down, in free-fall time, exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition. But get this: WTC7 collapsed at 5:20 p.m., 20 minutes after the BBC announced it.

Hayton throws the conversation to BBC reporter Jane Standley in New York, and as she delivers her story, WTC7 is clearly seen standing behind her. A graphic across the bottom of the screen reads “ The 47 storey Salomon Brothers Building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed”. The premature announcement of this unprecedented collapse is no less suspicious than if someone had announced the assassination of President Kennedy 20 minutes before it happened. Were the BBC fed the official script a little too early, or did the demolition of WTC7 go off a little too late?

Or was it a psychic prediction?

When news of the BBC early report of WTC7 broke in February of 2007, the entire news archive was deleted from, flushed down the memory hole.

Fox Five Fakery - Contents

Under Construction - Web version of my chapter in upcoming Scholars for 9/11 Truth Book.

Fox Five Fakery
Overwhelming Evidence of No Planes 
And Video Compositing Solves 9/11

By Alexander “Ace” Baker

Table of Contents 


Chopper 5
Psychic Predictions of WTC7  “Collapse”

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Legal Matters

I've attempted to influence the court case of Morgan Reynolds v Whoever-The-Hell-All he claims to be suing on the issue of no planes. The Number 1 piece of evidence in ANY no planes court case MUST be: Chopper 5.

Therefore, I have requested that attorney Jerry Leaphart has an ethical obligation to:

1. Name WNYW FOX 5 as a defendant
2. Subpoena the Chopper 5 footage.

Below is my correspondence with Morgan Reynolds, attorney Jerry Leaphart, co-author and litigant Judy Wood, Scholar for 9-11 Truth founder James Fetzer, and WNYW public affairs representative Isaura Nunez. Ms. Nunez has recently refused my request for a broadcast-quality copy of Chopper 5 for use in a documentary.

Subject: WNYW Chopper 5 footage MUST be evidence in your case.
Date: March 12, 2008 7:51:04 PM PDT
Cc:,, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM

Dear Morgan Reynolds and attorney Jerry Leaphart:

I have reviewed the documents in your Qui Tam lawsuit alleging no planes on 9-11. I must say, according to my scientific research, you are absolutely correct, there were no planes impacting the twin towers. However, it appears that you have failed to bring the most obvious, most crucial, most decisive evidence in your case.

The most crucial, most decisive, and most obvious evidence for no planes is the FOX 5, WNYW, "Chopper 5" footage. This is because:

1. There is no plane in the wide shot. Analysis has shown that the a real plane would be present in all of the first 170 video frames.
2. The plane image enters the picture 1 frame after a series of camera zooms.
3. The plane image becomes less stable after stablizing the background footage.
4. The nose of the airplane appears to pop out from behind the tower.
5. The picture fades to black right after the nose out.
6. The footage was never replayed.
7. The footage was cleansed from the official archives.

If the plane had been real, 1 is impossible, 2 is extremely unlikely, 3 is impossible, 4 is impossible, 5 is extremely suspicious, 6 is extremely suspicious, and 7 is extremely suspicious.

Mr. Leaphart, under the law, you have an ethical obligation to bring this evidence. I request that you "Doe in" WNYW, and subpoena the Chopper 5 footage. If you fail to bring this evidence, in my opinion, it will be a gross violation of your sworn ethical obligations under the law. If you are committed to representing your client, and proving no planes, I can think of absolutely no reason why you would not do this.

Please do the right thing. I implore you.

Copied on this email are:

James Fetzer Ph.D. - Founder of Scholars for 9-11 Truth.
Judy Wood, Ph.D, - Co-author with Dr. Reynolds, also a Qui-Tam plaintiff in 9-11 matters, and also represented by attorney Jerry Leaphart.
Isaura Nunez - Public Affairs and Media Relations, FOX 5.

Ms. Nunez has recently refused my request to license a broadcast-quality copy of Chopper 5. I have requested to be put in touch with the legal department at WNYW.


Alexander "Ace" Baker

Subject: Re: WNYW Chopper 5 footage MUST be evidence in your case.
Date: March 12, 2008 8:15:42 PM PDT
Cc:,, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM,


Based upon my familiarity with Ace Baker's study, I strongly second
his recommendation. This has to be among the most, if not the most,
important evidence available as to video fakery/presence of planes
on 9/11 in New York City. Please let me know if I can contribute.

Warm regards,


Subject: Re: WNYW Chopper 5 footage MUST be evidence in your case.
Date: March 13, 2008 6:52:34 AM PDT
Cc:,, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM

In a message dated 3/12/2008 11:16:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:
Please let me know if I can contribute.

Hi Jim,

I will let you know. Thanks for your message.


Subject: Re: WNYW Chopper 5 footage MUST be evidence in your case.
Date: March 13, 2008 12:26:10 PM PDT
Cc:, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM,

Mr. Baker:

FYI, my affidavit (sworn testimony) filed with the SDNY federal court contains the following:

52. Consider one video in particular. According to Ace Baker, musician, composer and videographer, FOX cleansed its Chopper 5 footage from the archives because there is: 1. No plane in the wide shot. 2. Miracle Zoom, too obvious. 3. Plane motion becomes less stable upon stabilizing the video. 4. Nose pops out from behind the layer mask. 5. Picture fades to black. 44
44 Source:

In addition, my affidavit contains another paragraph regarding work by Mr. Baker:

80. The case for the remarkable lack of eyewitnesses who claim they saw and heard an airliner hit a twin tower as claimed by the defendants is presented well in a radio interview by Ace Baker on January 15, 2007, including audio clips of commentary by network anchors and reporters during 9/11, as well interviews with alleged witnesses to the alleged WTC airliner events. 57

In the future, if you wish to make accusations against me and/or wish to fault my lawsuit, I suggest you rely on accurate facts to maximum extent possible before making charges. Diligent homework will aid you in this pursuit.

Regarding your advice on the ethics of attorney Leaphart, perhaps attorney Leaphart will comment in the future regarding his ethical obligations for Mr. Baker's edification, perhaps not. As a client, I have observed nothing but outstanding legal skills by Mr. Leaphart and the highest ethical standards on behalf of my lawsuit. I further observe that those eager to admonish others about their "ethical obligations" often are the least well qualified to do so. To offer a recent third party example, one Mr. Spitzer comes to mind.

I further suggest that you might consider filing your own lawsuit under the False Claims Act or another cause of action regarding the bogus WTC plane crashes. That would free you from up from your time-consuming obligation to counsel Reynolds and Leaphart on legal tactics, ethical obligations and intellectual content on behalf of the United States of America to expose and remedy fraud by NIST contractors.


Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.

Subject: Re: Accusation of Lepahart Legal Malpractice Restated and Re-Alleged
Date: March 13, 2008 7:24:43 PM PDT
Cc:,, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM,

Have not seen said affidavit. Please link. Offered link appears to be an mp3 file of some sort, and is dead. Alleged affidavit appears to be irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Accusation is that no subpoena has been brought for Chopper 5 footage, and that WNYW has not been named as defendant.

Please forward link to:

1. Subpoena for Chopper 5 footage
2. Link to WNYW named as defendant.

Accusation that Attorney Leaphart has fallen below his sworn ethical obligation under the law is restated and re-alleged. Please prove me wrong. I beg you.

Subject: Re: Accusation of Lepahart Legal Malpractice Restated and Re-Alleged
Date: March 14, 2008 8:55:52 AM PDT
Cc:, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM,

The opening sentence from your earlier email:
"I have reviewed the documents in your Qui Tam lawsuit alleging no
planes on 9-11."
By contrast, read your new email below. Case closed.

Subject: Re: A harmless little reply, and some of my best writing :-)
Date: March 15, 2008 9:04:07 AM PDT

My dearest Morgan,

No, the "case" is not closed.

My accusation was (and is) that Chopper 5 had not been subpoenaed, and that WNYW had not been named as a defendant. Your reply was an irrelevant non sequitur, containing a dead link to an mp3. When I said "Have not seen said affidavit", I meant "I have not seen any court documents which request the incriminating footage, and/or name the obvious perpetrator". When I said "please link" I meant "please provide an HTML hyperlink pointing to any copies of court documents which request the incriminating footage, and/or name the obvious perpetrator".

I hope that is clear now. In the words of a brilliant 9/11 researcher, "Can a Ph.D. . . . be this retarded?"

The answer to that question now, about you, is the same as it was then, about Steven Jones: No, Morgan Reynolds is not this retarded. Neither is Jerry Leaphart.

You know very well what you're doing, and you're doing it very well. Although your physics argument about planes is fundamentally correct, it's not threatening. We all know that the experts can argue kinetic energy and moment of inertia til the cows are hamburger. Same with the demolitions. Of course towers cannot pulverize themselves, but the experts can issue a blizzard of numbers and baffling BS, and the idiots in the general public blink, nod, and go back to watching American Idol.

On the other hand, the problems with Chopper 5 are obvious to anyone with eyesight. That's why they cleansed it. That's why they never replayed it. That's why they would fight a subpoena for it. Which would make them look guilty, like they're hiding something. Which they are. Because there's no plane in the wide shot.

Have I mentioned there's no plane where there's supposed to be a plane? I've counted, and the total quantity of planes, in the opening shot, is precisely zero. There are none, nada, zip, and nil. There aren't any, not even one. A plane fails to occur. No plane is evident. There's nary a plane apparent. There's an absence of plane. The plane is conspicuous by its absence, totally lacking, and unseen. It ain't there. There is no plane. Of plane, there is no. If playing Hamlet, the plane would choose not to be. The plane is not present and is not accounted for. The plane is away without official leave, missing in action, and derelict in its duty to be observable. The plane is guilty of a failure to appear. It's invisible. It's transparent. To say the plane was ephemeral or vaporous would be putting it mildly. It's non-existent.

There . . . is . . . no . . . plane.


Ace Baker

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Chopper 5 Frame Viewer

I've made a frame viewer for the Chopper 5 footage. Original source is Eric Salter's footage. The plane sequence was stablized in After Effects. Frame numbers were added in Final Cut Pro. Frames were exported as JPEGs image sequence from Quicktime pro.

Link to Chopper 5 Frame Viewer

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Judy Falls on her Sword

Judy Wood's paper with John Hutchison, published December 25, could not have been a better Christmas present to me. When I saw it, and being familiar with Hutchison's silly fake videos, I immediately recognized her move for what it was: "falling on her sword". She's made a deal with the devil, just like all the other actors in the 9/11 psy-opera - Jones, Griffin,  Greening, and the rest. 

Like so many, I've been trying to solve 9/11. Following the researchers has been a roller coaster ride. The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth promised to open the floodgates, and reveal 9/11 to the masses. Instead, they split into two factions,
and began deriding one another mercilessly. Wood and co. made an excellent case for Steven Jones deliberately downplaying the extent of the damage at ground zero, and failing to explain how thermite could possibly account for the disintegration. Yet Wood's theory of directed energy weapons was lacking itself. I was conflicted.

I don't know how the towers were blown up, but I'm a whole lot less conflicted in my mind now. By deliberately associating with Hutchison, Wood sent her message, and I have received it loud and clear. I know Judy Wood personally. I've corresponded with her for a year and a half now, I've stayed at Jerry Leaphart's Connecticut house with her and Morgan Reynolds for 3 days, video taping, drinking coffee in the morning, and gin and tonics at night. We've spent long hours on the phone.

I like Judy Wood. I truly do. She is smart, and not slick. During an earlier episode in her life, she endured more pain than most people can imagine. She has, without doubt, created the most complete study of the visual evidence at ground zero. She asks the right questions. I now believe that Judy was on the "inside" from the beginning, but, like a gang member who wants out of the gang, she is sending disguised pleas for help. She is telling us to look elsewhere for the truth.

She was trying to raise the red flags earlier. Like, never taking the "under construction" tags off her pages. Like drawing the line in the sand on thermite. I proposed to her that perhaps thermite was used in the fire zones only, to melt trusses and columns, causing the inward bowing which would all later be blamed on the fires. This would explain the observed molten metal pouring out of the south tower just before demolition. It would also allow Steven Jones to be "a little bit right".

This thermite in the fire zones sounds very reasonable to me, but Judy and Morgan Reynolds would have none of it. Of course thermite didn't blow up the towers, but why it was SO important to Judy and Morgan that thermite had NOTHING to do with the demolitions? They were VERY adamant about this. In a December 2007 phone call, they went so far as to suggest that the news videos which show the molten metal were faked. I pointed out that while compositing airplanes would be pretty easy, compositing molten metal on a hand-held news shot would basically be impossible.

Then came the "Hutchison Effect". So Judy Wood thinks the molten metal dripping out of the south tower are fake videos, but Hutchison's are real? Please, she does not. She's much smarter than that, trust me people. She's just not allowed to have any point of agreement with Steven Jones. Her hangout was to present the most complete study of the evidence, then associate it with the UFO-and-bigfoot, alternative-knowledge crowd. She's now done that.

In another December phone call, Judy and Morgan tried to convince me that the planes were really missiles projecting holograms. Why was THAT so important? THAT phone call really made me wonder. It bolstered my confidence that my analysis of the Chopper 5 video, and no-planes evidence in general is right on target.

It's a circular firing squad, isn't it? No actor gets the story right, and everybody points out the errors in everybody else's story. Isn't that the plan? Somebody had to be the one to actually present the photo evidence, and we can't have Jones do that. Oh no. He's too much of a real physicist. Too many questions. Leave that to "wacky ol' Judy", and have her spin a story about energy weapons "of some kind". 

If Judy Wood actually wants to continue to pursue 9/11 research with any credibility, I strongly suggest that she immediately divorce herself from John Hutchison, and his laughable upside down videos. He dangles things from the ceiling by holding a magnet on the other side. He edits video making things look like they change instantly.  Maybe she was fooled, or had an error in judgement, but I doubt it. Hutchison's videos are truly idiotic. At least he could have put in references for "which way is up" or "continuous time". That's what I've done in my fake Hutchison Effect videos. It's called one-upsmanship.  

I'll be the first to admit that top-secret energy technology exists. No question. The twin towers were indeed taken apart by something very powerful, very exotic. But John Hutchison has had nothing to do with it. While quantum mechanics is not my area of specialty, video fakery is. 

Judy Wood's observations are absolutely correct, and I still highly recommend her site. Ignore Hutchison Effect. The only connection between Hutchison and 9/11 is video fakery, and it's a weak connection. Hutchison uses old-school theater and camera tricks, 9/11 used video compositing.

A unified theory of 9/11 will include Jones, Wood, Reynolds, and the rest. The contributions of all will need to be analyzed in the context of their roles as insiders, and as voluntary participants in the circular firing squad. All of them have brought shattered fragments of the truth, stitched together with lies, nonsense and irrelevancies. We may someday learn how they did the towers. In the meantime, video fakery and no-planes solves 9/11.