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.

13 comments:

Shallel said...

This is very tough for me, too, Ace. While I don't know Judy personally I have great respect for her and her work. I think she is not only brilliant, but very spiritually minded. I have an engineering background, and have been vexed by the lack of debris so well illustrated by your composite photos on your "HTR" page. Judy has described what we saw best with her analogy of water boiling and the expansion of steam to 1600 times it's previous volume. I cannot explain how steel was blown apart at the molecular level, but this is what we see.
The only people with unknown technologies are the Black Ops of the Military Industry. Who knows what these bastards have, and how they can control even our brightest citizens, while polluting and destroying our planet. I don't know how the "insiders" think they will escape the consequences of their actions.
I hold out hope that the lawsuits will at least raise awareness, and I think your movie will be the best 9/11 film yet. I would love to raise money and awareness towards that. I agree the video fakery is one of our strongest points.
I think I need to take a break from this - I have been obsessed to the point where it is impacting my ability to create what I am here to. It is a roller coaster, and I hate the fear I feel. It is important for us to focus on creating the new, and spreading solutions ideas that are working for people now, like local food production, and Alt Energy and restoring our health in this toxic Monsanto madhouse.
Bottom line is on the Spiritual level this illusion cannot touch us, and we are fast approaching the disengagement of the Oneness of Spirit from the 3rd Density illusion.

Thanks to all for playing their parts in this enlightening drama.

u2r2h said...

You are a little anklebiter. Don't you think Judy and Morgan considered your stance? To me your article is a self-praising piece of woffle. You have ZERO evidence one way or another about the technology used in the destruction of the WTC. Hutchinson Schmutzinchon ... he is a messenger. Since you have made claims you are now in obligation to film hutchinson's stuff yourself. Go visit, investigate. Show us the tons of tesla coils.

Truth is about the WORD that describes WHAT HAPPEN ...

Good to read that Judy and Morgan are hologrammers. It is logical that hologramms were used. Remember this: a single authentic photo of a 767 PLUS noplanes/nonoise/tv-fakery EQUALS hologrammes. Get this in your head. You are capable of logic thinking!! As you know, there is no such thing as magic, there is only technology that is so advanced that it appears to be magic.

Now follow that logic.

I make it clearer to you, since you obviousloy have a blockage.

If you really deny holograms, you will have to assume that EVERY SINGLE photo showing a 767 is a fake. While there ARE fakes there are many shots of amputee wings, same-same pod, nose-out... etc pp.

Please come round and get off your high horse. You have been wrong before. So don't be so cocksure and instead of HINDER US do HELP US investigate.

Ace Baker said...

Holograms require a medium upon which to project them. Air doesn't work. Even if there was a method of projecting a hologram around a missile, it doesn't explain the lack of an airplane in the Chopper 5 wideshot. Your hologram would be in the first 170 frames. It isn't.

Nor does a hologram explain the nose out.

Video compositing is far simpler, it is known technology, it accounts for all the observations, and I have duplicated it.

"Amputee planes" is Webfairy idiocy at it's peak. Go look at real video of real airplanes. Having a wing blend into the sky is quite normal. Happens all the time.

Yes, my solution requires that all of the videos showing an airplane are composites. So what? If you can do one, you can do 2, or 7, or 30 of them.

And that's what that's what they did.

u2r2h said...

there you go again...

alright, brush it all off.

"so what" is hardly correct.

If you read my blog (1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 4 ) you will find the relevant info-bit that someone left for us to find (!)and you'd get the idea what the "screen" is made of.

What makes me so sure?

I listened to all of you guys, but you are too much in love with you paltry abilities to dissect.

All I did is to follow logic. You boys are simply not rigorous.

So here it is again:

EVEN ONE SINGLE authentic EYEWITNESS, a single authentic photo, only a SINGLE authentic film

would show the truth.

The ops could not risk that.

This is inescapable logic.

Simple, elegant.

You really need to have something in your drinking water to manage to brush this off.

I am truely sorry to be so blunt.

pleeeease think hard about it. NO OTHER WAY, comprehend, pleeease.

please.

Ace Baker said...

U2 said:

"EVEN ONE SINGLE authentic EYEWITNESS, a single authentic photo, only a SINGLE authentic film

would show the truth.

The ops could not risk that.

This is inescapable logic."

That's not right. We HAVE authentic eyewitnesses, people who reported the building exploding and no plane. The strategy was to simply drown them out.

I'm not aware of any videos of the tower exploding. But I'm sure the perps were ready for that. They'd accuse the photographer of faking it, of erasing the plane, and they'd have a video engineer perp swear that he was hired to erase the plane, and then they'd produce the same footage with a plane in it, and claim THAT was the original.

In the end, they didn't need to do that.

Now, U2, try explaining how there is no flying object in the chopper 5 wide shot?

How does a missile make a plane-shaped hole?

How does a hologram continue functioning after the missile is halfway in the building?

How does the hologram not reflect off the smoke and dust in the explosion?

u2r2h said...

What you write is laughable.

And I feel insulted that you still HAVE NOT read my blogs.

Variable Visibility is a hallmark of holograms.

the conjugated mirror only works for certain locations.

But that's beside the point. I give up and leave you to your idiocies.

You see, even if was able to explain the mechanism, you'd would still debate it because you are not capable of grasping

ELEMENTARY LOGIC

perps cannot risk NO PLANE

Imagine if Michael Hezarkhani had filmed a missile. There are a hundred ways how this footage could appear in two versions... faked/nonfaked.

If this had happened in 2001, the world would have CAUGHT ON.

You can phantasize about the CIA being able to control all footage and to control all damage of leaked authentic missile footage, the fact is that this is impossible and even a hint of video fakery would have given taleban and saddam the mental ammo to convince the world to disallow the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The hologramme technology is a secret weapon, it is of HIGHEST MILITARY CLASSIFICATION.

It was "ideal" to land the coup on the world's minds.

Today -- 6.5 years after the illusionist bloodbath -- there is the added factor that nobody wants to believe that they were fooled.

But 911 WILL come out. The perps miscalculated in one important respect.

The INTERNET COMMUNITY is smarter and adamant. People LOVE thruth and hate sneaky murders for profit.
And this feeling is bigger than an oath of allegiance.

4 answers to your valid queations:

chopper 5 wide: Variable Visibility!!

plane shape hole: US military has THE experts. They can make a hole any shape you like.

keep functioning: atomic vapor conjugated mirror still "spraying"
laser keeps illuminating

a hologramme reflects what it is programmed to reflect.


ace, you will kick yourself one day. You will remember this exchange.

When will you visit hutchinson's lab and film for us?

Don't release your film unless it centers on hologrammes. We don't need another film with misinformation.

Hey! just have a look at the plane in the Hez shot. Doesn't that look like a mirage? too silvery, too shiny, too much pod

If this was a Video fake they'd done it more authentic, left out the unnaturally large wingfairing (pod) and hadn't overdone the antennae and and and ...

Oh, and, in a crime of that magnitude you MUST KILL PEOPLE WHO KNOW TOO MUCH. So you think that CIA agents would lovingly fake videos AFTER THE FACT ??? I think they would know that this is their death sentence.

u2r2h said...

UPDATE!!

looks like holograms are going to be argued in court

!!!

Ace Baker said...

Of course they would not risk people filming a missile, that's how we known there was no missile. You're the one pushing missiles, not me.

There were no flying objects of any kind, that's the only thing that makes sense. How can innocent bystanders take a picture of nothing?

They can't.

How could the power supply of your missile based hologram continue to function after the the missile is 99% in the building and exploding?

How does the nose of a hologram pop out the back side?

And, why does your missile fail to break through the wall? You still have a complete lack of crash physics. How does your hologram missile account for the magically healing columns? It doesn't.

Nope, I'm not buying missile-based holograms. Video compositing makes total sense, it fits the evidence. It's how they did it. I've reproduced the effect. What we see on the videos looks like a bad special effect.

Ace Baker said...

U2, I read the article on the Wood and Reynolds Qui Tam cases, and the word "hologram" does not appear.

What are you talking about? You wrote an article called

"update: NOPLANE HOLOGRAMME COURT CASE".

What are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

Ace

I recently noticed something from "9|11 The Filmmakers' Commemorative DVD Edition", during the 2nd hit sequence from 33:53 onwards and made a series of snapshot frames to view.

Aside from the gradually extending right wing, a number of objects can be seen in mid-air near the crash site, seconds before arrival of the plane.

This might imply that holograms can be projected remotely, rather than from around a missile.

A lot of things are explained when considering holography, witnesses to planes, different types of plane, crash physics, plane missing from the edge of chopper shot, a nose out pixel match and also the fast ufo object that's on several pieces of film.

Holography offered the perfect solution, with no need to take over news crews or control witnesses as the planes would have been visible.

Pod and TV Fakery arguments would have been conceived before the attacks to create conflict between witnesses and researchers.

Digital studies can be true and witnesses could also have seen the planes, therefore holography is the solution.

Having expertise with video analysis, could you please take a look at these Naudet frames?

Thanks

Ace Baker said...

Do you have a link to these frames?

Anonymous said...

(I just sent this email with the attached pictures to: ace@acebaker.com)

Hi Ace

Here are the pictures I saved of the Naudet second hit. I paused Windows Media Player and pressed print screen. Perhaps you can pull these from the DVD format and de-interlace, improve the quality, view extra frames?

This anomaly is a series of flickering white regions in the sky just before the second impact. It is far more striking if you actually watch the DVD. Treat my pictures as an introduction showing you where to look.

Internet versions of this video are blurry, that's why I think that nobody has noticed this before.

I look forward to seeing what you find

Anonymous said...

I have just found another example of this anomaly from a different angle of the second hit.

The clip is part of a video from FutchDuck. An 8:42 video showing "All Known Footage of Planes Crashing at WTC". I saved this from YouTube recently, although I think it's now been removed. The particular segment is from 5:04 to 5:21. I can email this file to Ace if anyone wants to view it.

The Naudet DVD sequence shows the following elements:

a blinking object next to the tower (4 seconds before impact)
an object at the dark corner of black smoke (immediately before impact)
at least 2 further objects near the tower (more difficult to see)

The segment from the FutchDuck clip shows:

blinking object next to the tower is at the same time as Naudet
(another object in black smoke can also be seen at this time)
additional objects that are not viewable from the Naudet perspective of the tower
object at the dark corner of black smoke blinks at the same time as Naudet

One could argue that these objects might be debris from the first attack. However, several remain static in the air far too long. These objects certainly are not paper. And one only needs to watch the alluminium cladding flying off the building a few seconds later to realise how static these objects have remained.

Another could argue that video artifacts on the internet clip from FutchDuck produces these objects. However, what is the probability of noticable objects being represented at the same points in 3D space viewable from different clips?