Ace Baker's 9/11 Research - WMD at the WTC

Liu Bolin, The Invisible Man . . . and 9/11

2011-11-23T20:16:00.000-08:00

Liu Bolin is the Invisible Man. He creates astonishing photographs of himself painted to blend in with the surroundings.

The 36-year-old Chinese artist has made quite a name for himself lately, boasting several recent Yahoo articles and an exhibition of his work at the Eli Klien Fine Art Gallery in New York City.

Liu Bolin is an artistic genius. He's also a fraud. The following animated gif alternates between two of Liu's recent works, depicting him in the infamous Tiananmin Square.

(click to enlarge)

In one frame he's allegedly painted himself to replace the portrait of Mao, and to match the arched gateway underneath. In the other frame, he stands further back, and blends into the wall. Notice, however, that the flags and the other people are identical in the two shots. They could not possibly have been photographed at two different times. This is irrefutable evidence that Liu has simply used photoshopping techniques to create his startling effect, at least in these two photos.

This is no great discovery on my part, I'm merely pointing out the obvious. Liu is no amateur. He didn't have to give the game away like this. He could easily have just used two different background pictures, instead of the same one twice. He understands that his trickery would be exposed by a comparison of these two images. He clearly wants us to "see through" what he's doing.

What of the people at the Eli Klien Gallery? Are they among the deceived, or the deceivers? Everyone knows that Photoshop would be a much easier method of achieving the Invisible Man effect than actually painting a person. And by the way, according to the story, Liu doesn't do the painting himself anyway, it is done by "an assistant". If any of Liu's art really is accomplished with actual painting, then a good deal of the artistic credit should go to the painter. However, I am sincere when I call Liu a genius.

There is surely fakery taking place, and I believe this is the important part of Liu's message. He is challenging us to contemplate the validity of what is presented to us in the media. He and the Eli Klien Gallery are inspiring us to see through it, while being bombarded with messages that the work is legitimate. Get it? The point is to test your ability to believe falsehoods when the truth is plain to see.

And so it was with 9/11. In case you haven't seen "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera", you should.

http://psy-opera.com

In particular, Chapter 7 "The Key", presents overwhelming evidence and explanation for why we know that the 9/11 airplane videos were faked using video compositing. Both the 9/11 airplanes and Liu Bolin's art present examples of the extraordinary ability of people to deny the truth when it conflicts with a belief system propagated by media. This phenomenon is called "cognitive dissonance". Artists who dare to provoke cognitive dissonance are my favorites. How about you?

(9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera is rated CG for Cognitive Dissonance).

Press Release 2

2011-09-17T06:19:00.000-07:00

chapter 2

The Official Story

vs. The Truth Movement

psy-opera.com

The scientific and historical investigation begins in earnest on Sunday, September 18, 2011. Ace Baker compares the official story of 9/11 with the claims made by the truth movement. This chapter features original interview material with Official "collapse" modeler Frank Greening, and introduces some of the other major players - Zdenek Bazant, Dylan Avery, Jim Fetzer, David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds, Jim Hoffman, and the crew from Popular Mechanics.

Chapter 2 also debuts a new song “9/11 Was an Inside Job (guess you didn’t get the memo)”, a humorous lambasting of Norman Mineta’s testimony regarding Dick Cheney in the White House bunker.

Fearlessly Answered Questions

Could plane crashes and fires really cause what we saw? Where’s the tail? Where are the engines? Where are the seats? Where is the luggage? Where are the passengers? Why did World Trade Center building 7 go into freefall? Wouldn’t the core be left standing? Does this look like a hollow steel shaft? How could that possibly be? Where are the floors?

Where was America's mighty air defense? Was it just a coincidence that a number of military war games were taking place on 9/11, including simulated hijackings, planes crashing into buildings, and fake blips injected into the radar screens? Is this real world or an exercise? Was it just a coincidence that a bio-terror exercise called Tripod II was scheduled for the day after 9/11, on the pier right next to the World Trade Center, and that FEMA agents had already arrived the night before 9/11?

Was it just a coincidence that on the day before 9/11, the Pentagon announced it had misplaced $2.3 Trillion? Was it just a coincidence that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon in an area that had recently been renovated, and that contained financial records, and not the area where the top brass had their offices? Did the Bush administration receive warnings that Al Quaeda was going to strike? How specific were the threats? How can security be strengthened in the future? Do the orders still stand? Why would the U.S. government do such a thing? Did Brent Blanchard get the memo?

View The Great American Psy-Opera at psy-opera.com, or . . .

Become an Affiliate

Earn money and spread the word by imbedding chapters into your own website, blog, forum, or facebook. It's easy. Go to psy-opera.com, call up the chapter you want to embed, follow the embed links to youreeeka, and create a free membership. You will earn 50% of the revenue from people who watch on your site.

________________

Prediction on Bin Laden Death Photos

2011-05-04T10:33:00.000-07:00

Osama bin Laden was allegedly killed a couple of days ago at his compound in Afghanistan. Before burying him at sea, gruesome pictures were supposedly taken of him with a bullet through the left side of his head. They're debating whether to release the photos.

9/11 "truthers" have long suspected that Bin Laden was a CIA asset, going back to his days as a pro-U.S. "freedom fighter" in the Afghan war against the U.S.S.R. FOX news reported Bin Laden's death on December 26, 2001. Who knows the truth? I certainly don't claim to. I doubt Barrack Obama knows the truth either.

What is clear is that they very much want us to believe that they finally got that bad guy. Here's my prediction:

They will officially decline to release the photos, citing concerns that it will foment anti-American sentiment. Then the photos will be "leaked", the classic method of getting us to focus on the issues surrounding leaks per se, while accepting the government lies as gospel.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Bin Laden is still alive, nor am I saying he died long ago. I'm saying that I don't know, you don't know, and it's un-knowable.

Obama's Forged Birth Certificate = Silverstein's "Pull it"

2011-04-30T07:36:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the web exploded with proof that Obama's newly released "long form" birth certificate is a forgery. Clearly it has been hacked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY

The birth certificate, available on the White House website, is in PDF format. Opening the file in Adobe Illustrator allows us to see that the document was assembled in multiple layers. Usually a graphic artist will "flatten" a composited image for final output, merging all layers into one final picture. Apparently Obama's guys "forgot" to do that. Even had they flattened the layers, there are other glaring mistakes, such as the mismatching colors on adjacent characters.

Could the holy graphic artist really be so incompetent? I highly doubt it. They could make a perfect forgery if they wanted to, and could have done so years ago. They wanted us to obsess on this file. They question is, why?

I think it's a distraction, like Clinton's Monica Lewinski. It's also a lot like Larry Silverstein's "pull it" remark. For anyone who doesn't know, Silverstein was the the brand-new lease holder on the World Trade Center on 9/11. Speaking about WTC7 in a government documentary show, he said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision, to pull, and then we watched the building collapse".

For years afterward, the 9/11 "truth" movement spent tremendous time and energy on "pull it". They said "pull it" was jargon from the controlled demolition industry meaning "initiate the demolition", as in "pull the building". They suggested that Silverstein slipped up, and admitted that WTC7 was blown up. How this supposed slip up was allowed to make it to an edited government documentary program was never explained.

The official story supporters echoed the subsequent explanation given by Silverstein's spokesperson. According to them, "pull it" meant "pull the firefighting effort out of the building". Why would Silverstein would have said "pull it" rather than "pull them"? Why was such an ambiguous statement in the show to begin with? If they had wanted us to have a clear statement, they surely would have given us one.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Silverstein's "pull it" was a carefully crafted statement, designed to do exactly what it did: generate obsession and debate, while still having some plausible deniability. It was a distraction.

And so it is with Obama's birth certificate. It's a hacked up photoshop job all right. But the official story is that a software process of OCR (Optical Character Recognition) generated the separate layers in the file. It is true that the OCR (and/or "PDF Optimization") can generate layers recognized by Adobe Illustrator, but it cannot create anything remotely resembling what is seen in the laughable Obama birth certificate. Still, most people don't have the software, or will not bother to check it out in depth. For those inclined to support the official story, OCR is good enough.

The forged birth certificate is a lightening rod, designed to draw the fire, and keep us focused on that. Why? Are we supposed to forget about Libya? Is there a new war brewing? Are they planning to install a new president next election? Is it just an exercise in audacity, as if to say "Yeah, we forged it. What are you going to do about it?"

I don't know where Obama was born, and I don't care. I don't support what politicians do, regardless.

Wikileaks is a U.S. Asset

2010-11-30T08:02:00.002-08:00

Wikileaks is surely a U.S. counter-intelligence operation. It is simply a new portal for an old tactic. Government agents have long been packaging certain key pieces of propaganda as "leaks". Doing so serves the purpose of bypassing scrutiny of the content of the message. Focus is instead placed on questions such as . . .

Who leaked the information?
How much damage was done to national security?
What can be done to contain the leak?
How can we prevent future leaks?
How should we punish the person who leaked the information?

. . . instead of asking the fundamental question:

Is this information true?

In addition to the goal of garnering unquestioning public acceptance of important lies, "leaks" propagate the "government can't keep a secret" meme. This is a key pillar in defense of large disinformation campaigns protecting, for example, 9/11. Recently AP news has started citing "Leak" as an allegedly reliable source, the same way they have for a long time cited "government sources" or "a high ranking Pentagon official" or whatever.

If you believe that large groups of people cannot keep a secret for a long time, then answer the following. What are the accomplishments of the NSA? Where can I download plans to build a nuclear weapon?

Facebook and the Controlled Opposition

2010-08-27T18:30:00.000-07:00

Facebook is suing Teachbook in federal court, alleging trademark infringement. They claim that use of the word "book" in the name of a social networking site dilutes the value of their famous brand. A great number of reports have appeared about it, see this, and this, for instance.

I suspect Facebook secretly owns Teachbook. This unfolding drama makes much more sense to me in that light. Let's think about it.

You may or may not know, most teachers are reluctant to use Facebook, citing privacy concerns, fearing their students will friend them. Owning a spin-off site for teachers, with privacy, would be a nice solution. What's a cost-effective way to get the word out, and jump start subscriptions? A nice controversial lawsuit. Membership on Teachbook has gone from a mere 10 users, to nearly 5000, just in the last few days as news of the lawsuit spread.

If Facebook can prevail in the lawsuit, it will establish precedent that it enjoys a trademark in the suffix "book". The best chance for a plaintiff to win in such an endeavor is to control the defendant. And, as Vladimir Lenin so infamously said:

The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.

We should pay careful attention to how Teachbook handles their defense. There are any number of ways that they could underlitigate, and try to lose on purpose. The first would be answering the complaint right away. Their first two moves should be:

1. Under California law, file an anti-SLAPP Special Motion to Strike. This is a low-cost Motion that would force Facebook to essentially prove up its whole case right at the beginning, just to proceed to discovery. This is a federal case, the judge may or may not allow the California statute 425.16 to be used.

2. File a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Cause of Action Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. This is standard defense in almost every federal case. The judge would have the authority to toss the case right out, again, prior to any discovery.

If Teachbook doesn't respond with those two moves, I will immediately smell a rat. However, even if Teachbook litigates vigorously, and even if they get the case dismissed, or even if they counterclaim against Facebook and prevail, it still makes sense that Facebook is behind it. After all, what harm is there in losing a court case to yourself?

I think Facebook is playing both sides in this game, and they have created a no-lose situation for themselves. The worst case is that Teachbook becomes popular among teachers, and Facebook has solved their teacher problem. The best case is all that, PLUS they really do get to own the word "book", and then force every other "book" site to surrender their name.

It's brilliant, and it's the only scenario that makes sense to me. Why else would Facebook risk suing a little tiny website with nothing to lose, and everything to gain from a potential counter-suit?

Fractional Reserve Bandwidth

2009-11-29T05:44:00.000-08:00

I'm convinced AT&T are selling more bandwidth than they actually have. I have AT&T DSL, and my connection speed varies dramatically throughout the day. We've had the service guy out twice, he's changed a line filter and whatnot, but it really has made no difference.

Usually I get about 2.5 Mb/sec download, which is bad enough, I understand many DSL connections achieve up to 8 Mb/sec. But then it will clog up and I'll get only 20% of what I was getting just a minute before. The performance fluctuates throughout the day and night, but the most likely time to get the really slow speeds is early evening, so it seems correlated to peak hours.

My understanding was that a DSL is a hardwire connection to the internet. Its bandwidth should not vary. I highly suspect AT&T has developed a scheme that continuously re-allocates bandwidth among active users, "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Not all of their customers use the internet at the same time. For a certain number of users, the re-allocation would be unnoticeable. But the more users on the grid, the more performance would have to suffer. The temptation on the part of AT&T would be to service as many customers as possible for a given hardware investment.

This is not unlike the way banks originated the process of "fractional reserve banking", where they would fraudulently issue paper receipts for gold far in excess of the gold they actually possessed. Of course, the banks eventually managed to "legitimize" the practice and eliminate the obligation to redeem in gold at all.

Is anyone else experiencing fractional reserve bandwidth? Is this what you paid for? How might the large internet providers seek to legitimize the practice, once it becomes known?

Nuking the Airplane Hole

2009-10-05T21:22:00.000-07:00

(click to enlarge)

Here's a stabilized sequence from Jennifer Spell's video, after the "airplane" goes in, and waits, then two totally different types of explosions occur. One is the spectacular orange-black hydrocarbon fireball, meant to represent "jet fuel". But notice the explosion on the lower left. Point sources leave expanding white trails. This looks very much like what happens to the entire building later on, which looks very much like known nuclear reactions.

Fake Video Dramatically Alters Eyewitness Accounts

2009-09-15T17:52:00.000-07:00

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914110537.htm

Researchers at the University of Warwick have found that fake video evidence can dramatically alter people's perceptions of events, even convincing them to testify as an eyewitness to an event that never happened.

Associate Professor Dr Kimberley Wade from the Department of Psychology led an experiment to see whether exposure to fabricated footage of an event could induce individuals to accuse another person of doing something they never did.

In the study, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, Dr Wade found that almost 50% of people shown fake footage of an event they witnessed first hand were prepared to believe the video version rather than what they actually saw.

Dr Wade's research team filmed 60 subjects as they took part in a computerised gambling task. The subjects were unknowingly seated next to a member of the research team as they both separately answered a series of multiple-choice general knowledge questions.

All subjects were given a pile of fake money to gamble with and they shared a pile of money that represented the bank. Their task was to earn as much money as possible by typing in an amount of money to gamble on the chances of them answering each question correctly. They were told the person who made the highest profit would win a prize.

When they answered each question, subjects saw either a green tick on their computer monitor to show their answer was correct, or a red cross to show it was incorrect. If the answer was wrong, they would be told to return the money to the bank.

After the session, the video footage was doctored to make it look as if the member of the research team sat next to the subject was cheating by not putting money back into the bank.

One third of the subjects were told that the person sat next to them was suspected of cheating. Another third were told the person had been caught on camera cheating, and the remaining group were actually shown the fake video footage. All subjects were then asked to sign a statement only if they had seen the cheating take place.

Nearly 40% of the participants who had seen the doctored video complied. Another 10% of the group signed when asked a second time by the researchers. Only 10% of those who were told the incident had been caught on film but were not shown the video agreed to sign, and about 5% of the control group who were just told about the cheating signed the statement.

Dr Wade said: "Over the previous decade we have seen rapid advances in digital-manipulation technology. As a result, almost anyone can create convincing, yet fake, images or video footage. Our research shows that if fake footage is extremely compelling, it can induce people to testify about something they never witnessed."

For more information, please contact Kelly Parkes-Harrison, Communications Officer, University of Warwick 02476 150483/02476 574255, 07824 540863, K.E.Parkes@warwick.ac.uk

.............................................................

Kelly Parkes-Harrison

Communications Officer

University of Warwick 02476

Dear Kelly,

I read with tremendous interest Dr. Wade's recent study on fake video altering eyewitness accounts. I'm an expert in video compositing, and I have authored a treatise proving that the airplane videos broadcast on 9/11 were in fact fake. That is, the 9/11 airplane videos were authentic footage with a fake airplane image inserted into them.

None of the live 9/11 airplane videos actually showed an airplane hitting anything, rather the airplane disappears across the straight edge of a tower. The live videos had all of the compositional characteristics required for live video compositing, which in and of itself would be extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance. Those that did show the penetration came only later, after there was plenty of time to composite in the actual airplane penetration.

These penetration videos are provably fake. The airplane goes through the steel wall without any physics at all - no bending, crashing, breaking, slowing down - quite impossible. A real airplane would react to the impact with the much stronger tower, parts would break off, many would fall to the ground.

One frame of video shows the wing of the airplane past the wall of the tower, yet no damage to the wall.

Mistakes were made in one live video, known as "Chopper 5". The nose of the fake airplane image accidentally popped out of the back site of a video mask, making it appear as though the nose of the airplane came out the back side of the tower. This is quite impossible, as the nose of a 767 airplane is plastic, and hollow, and nobody alleges that the nose actually came out. Various attempts have been made to explain it away, but the fact is, it looks exactly like the nose of a Boeing 767, and this is exactly the kind of problem you might have in trying to do a live video composite like this.

There are many, many other anomalies, all supporting the video composite hypothesis, and ruling out real airplane crashes. The only evidence for real airplanes are the eyewitnesses, and that's where Dr. Wade's study comes in. I wish to thank her for it, and you can rest assured I will reference it in my future work, including my upcoming film, "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera".

My treatise may be studied here:

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/

I would welcome any comment you have.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

Frank Legge Says it All

2009-09-15T14:05:00.000-07:00

Anyone who pushes the idea that the planes were not real, regardless of whether or not they were real, is doing a terrible disservice to the truth movement.

-Frank Legge

A Few Quick Comments on Nat Geo Hit Piece

2009-09-02T10:03:00.001-07:00

The National Geographic hit piece on 9/11 truth aired 2 nights ago. It was called "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" or something similar. I recorded it and will get around to a more rigorous critique at some point.

A few observations of the top of my head -

1. The editing was malicious in the extreme. The "truthers" - Dylan Avery, David Ray Griffin, and Richard Gage, were barely allowed to say anything. Though I have differences of opinion with Gage on explosive type used, Gage can do a competent job of explaining the evidence for explosive demolition. In particular, I have heard Richard gage point out that the steel floor pans were disintegrated. I am very confident that Richard Gage must have offered a good deal more substantive material than Nat Geo chose to include.

2. The softening beam experiment. Nat Geo built a nice kerosene fire under a loaded steel beam, and got it to sag and fail quite quickly. OK. So what? How could a fire in the twin towers get ALL of the beams in a story to fail at the same time?

Worse, assume all of the support in a story fails at the same time. Assume it melts. Assume it evaporates and disappears, allowing the upper structure to fall unimpeded down onto the lower structure. How does softened support at floor 96 explain how the entire tower exploded into dust? How does it explain the mushroom cloud? How does it explain the dust tsunami? How does it explain the particle size?

3. The projectile experiment. They shot an aluminum cylinder at some walls, and it penetrated, leaving holes roughly in the shape of the projectile. FIrst of all, the holes weren't circular, they were ripped out.

But more importantly, what happened to the projectile? Nat Geo didn't show us. The projectile emerges out the back side after passing through several walls. I suspect the projectile sustained little damage. This makes sense. It was stronger than the walls, so it made a cutout of itself, and went through. On 9/11, we're asked to believe that airplanes made cutouts of themselves, but then disintegrated. It makes no sense.

4. No det cord means no demolition. Nat Geo tried to suggest that because the rubble had no det cord, and it would have taken workers months to rig a standard demolition, and would have needed to cut away walls, it couldn't have been demolished. This simply means it wasn't a standard demolition, which is quite obvious anyway.

5. David Ray Griffin said the twin towers "imploded" and went "into their footprint". This is false, disinformation from David Ray Griffin. The towers EX-ploded, not IM-ploded. The mass of the towers went almost entirely OUTSIDE the footprint, which is one of the best proofs of explosive demolition. Official collapse modelers Frank Greening and Zdenek Bazant agree that anything more than 20% outside the footprint rules out a gravity collapse.

9/11 FAQ Part 1

2009-08-13T01:06:00.000-07:00

1: how could the government possibly get every one of the thousands of firefighters, FBI agents, demo experts, CIA, majority of the house of reprasentatives, scientists, everybody in the bush admin, major military figures, air traffic controll, rescue workers, pilots, police etc. to keep it a secret?

Threats and bribes. People are scared of losing their jobs, scared of being outcast, scared in a hundred ways. Plus they're on the payroll. The government funds, thus controls about 100% of all scientific research. Look at what has happened to the few academics who have spoken out on 9/11. Fired, every last one.

Don't think large numbers of people can keep secrets for a long time? I'll prove that wrong with 3 letters: N S A. The NSA is a secret government organization with at least 30,000 full time employees, and an unknown black budget. They've been around since . . . well we don't really know exactly, but many decades at least.

What have they done? What are the accomplishments of the NSA? 30,000 working full time for decades on end, and we don't have any idea what they do. Why? BECAUSE IT'S SECRET!

2: why would the government attack the pentagon? theres no point. even if there was info in the pentagon regarding 9/11, its only a small section. theres still 95% percent of the pentagon not destroyed. i doubt highly that only one section of the pentagon has something as important as the BIGGEST TERRORIST ATTACK EVER.

The Pentagon is a military target. They needed to be able to call 9/11 "an act of war", which is exactly what the president called it. Remember that the wall that was blown up (allegedly by flight 77), had recently been renovated for "blast protection", and was far away from the area where the top brass hang out.

3: why would bush invade afghanistan for oil money? the cost would be greater than the profit.

the costs of a possible 9/11 conspiracy: paying off the thousands of major figures that would have had to been in on 9/11 to make it work- around 3 billion dollars AT LEAST.

the cost of freedom tower: estimated around just below a trillion dollars if not more.

cost to carry out the leftover debris: about 10 million.

war costs: trillions of dollars.

the profit of a possible 9/11 conspiracy:

oil: 1.5 trillion.

as you can see, the cost would be greater than the profit.

Other People's Money. The people who wage war are not the people who pay for war. You're right that 9/11 was a net loss, a huge net loss. War is always a net loss. But SOME people can profit immensely from war, such as the government and its military contractors, and that's exactly who did 9/11.

The same is true for the real estate. The insurance companies who paid for the World Trade Center are being greased directly by the Federal Reserve, who simply create money out of thin air. The true cost of all this is being paid by productive citizens in their taxes, and by inflation.

3: why would osama admit to 9/11 if he didnt do it?

Because he's a CIA asset. A paid actor. First, Osama might very well have been dead now for years. We don't know. The various "confession" tapes are a joke, the guys don't look like him. But assume Osama really admits responsibility. So what? What did it cost him? You really think they couldn't go find Osama bin Laden if they wanted to? Please.

And remember, Osama was OUR guy to begin with. "Al Queada" really grew out of Osama's "Freedom Fighters", who were backed by the U.S. government when Afghanistan was fighting the Soviets during the 1980's.

4: if the government really wanted to ensure the success of the conspiracy, why wouldnt they assassinate the big names in the conspiracy buisneess in the most accidental looking way possible?

The "big names" are part of the conspiracy. Vladimir Lenin said "The best way control the opposition is to lead it ourselves". So true.

Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, Simon Shack and many others have screwed the case up badly. Fetzer never really says anything. Jones is pushing a thermite hoax that cannot possibly explain what disintegrated the towers, while ignoring the visual evidence. Wood does a great job of examining the visual evidence, but associates it with the ridiculous nonsense about "The Hutchison Effect". Shack has destroyed the case for video fakery, by claiming the 9/11 videos are completely animated.

It would be far too messy to go around killing truthers. The strategy is to flood the internet with nonsense called "9/11 truth". It's worked brilliantly. The "truth" movement is a manifest failure.

5: if the government really did it, why wouldnt they shut down your conspiracy sites minutes after their creation? youre telling me the government can carry out the biggest terrorist attack in history and successfully blame it on someone else, but they somehow dont have the ability to shut down something as simple as "infowars.com" or some other college student-made site?

Same as #4 - too messy. Instead of shutting down real truth, the drown it with a flood of half-truth, lies posing as truth, nonsense, irrelevancies, and the like. Government agents outnumber real truthers 1000 to 1. They have essentially unlimited funding. Remember how, on the day before 9/11 they announced the Pentagon has misplaced $2.3 trillion? That'll buy you a nice 9/11, plus a whole lot of "truth" sites.

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

These FAQs by Tyler Hightower.

Plane in the Wide Shot Strengthens the Case

2009-08-08T06:29:00.000-07:00

I was wrong. There is an airplane in the wide shot of Chopper 5. It's difficult to see in the Dylan Avery version. And it is very very difficult to see in the Jim Hoffman west coast version. But it's there.

Since Hoffman's came out first, and Avery's came out after people complained about the missing airplane in the wide shot, I thought they must have added the airplane only into Avery.

But I was always troubled by this. It didn't make sense. Hoffman's Chopper 5 wasn't released until years after 9/11. Surely they had ample time to fix anything wrong with it. Would they have ever released it without first figuring out there should be a plane in that opening? Of course not.

Just like they wouldn't release it without fixing the nose out.

But wait a minute. We still have the nose out. If the nose out was a compositing mistake, where they allowed the nose of the airplane image to slip out the back side of a luma key mask, couldn't they just erase the nose out altogether, and be done?

No.

People saw the nose out mistake. News anchor Jim Ryan saw it, and felt compelled to explain it by saying, "The plane went right through the other tower". Some people at home must have seen it too. They'd remember. This had to be explained away, not erased away.

"An explosion that took the shape of a Boeing 767!" This was the solution.

They took the nose out in Chopper 5 and modified it carefully. They left the beginning of it intact. Toward the end of it, they defocused it and made it get a little bigger and bumpier, so we could start imagining it was an explosion of dust.

To help cover tracks, they added the flame covering up most of the nose, as it starts to blur. This flame has an additional benefit. If the flame were present in the original shot, it would have made this type of video composite impossible. The keyer would not be able to accurately distinguish between flame and sky, and would have likely made the flame go transparent.

It's still not possible for a dust explosion to take the shape of a Boeing 767. Nor is it reasonable to believe any of the various explanations for the fade-to-black. Nor do we have an explanation for why the cameras held steady shots of the towers, rather than following the plane. Nor do we have a good explanation for the lack of crash physics, nor the missing wake vortex, nor the many eyewitnesses who witnessed no plane, nor the refusal to release original quality video.

Video compositing still fits the evidence better than any other explanation. In fact, now it fits even better than before. It explains how the composi-traitors were so stupid as to release a version with a missing plane - they weren't, and they didn't.

What Happened?

2009-07-24T17:58:00.000-07:00

The official story of 9/11 is certainly false. The many claims that make up the official story run from highly unlikely to physically impossible. Proving the official story false is one thing. Advancing a positive theory of what did happen is another thing.

Various demolition theories have emerged, as have various theories about the airplane crashes. There are many individuals criticizing these theories. Very few people are actually supporting any positive assertions.

Here is a list, off the top of my head, of the various airplane theories, and the people advancing them. I'll update this as information comes to my attention. Eventually I'd like to paste in the evidence in support of each theory.

The official story. Suicidal hijackers crashed commercial Boeings into the towers. The airplane videos depict authentic footage. (NIST, mainstream media).
Super planes. Specially modified planes were swapped with the passenger flights, and flown by remote control into the towers. The airplane videos depict authentic footage. (Anthony Lawson).
Video Compositing. The airplane videos were faked by inserting airplane images into otherwise real video. The towers exploded from within. (Ace Baker).
Hologram. A 3D airplane image was projected into thin air. The airplane videos depict authentic footage of this hologram. (John Lear).
Total animation. The 9/11 videos, including the demolitions and everything else, were completely animated using unknown technology. (Simon Shack, Fred BS Registration, Webfairy, Killtown).
The Flying TV. An aircraft completely covered in LCDs flew at the towers. At the last moment, it became invisible by displaying an image from the opposite side of the plane, and swerved to miss the towers. The airplane videos are a "cartoon display". (Morgan Reynolds).
The truth about the airplane videos is not knowable. (Rasga Saias)

Why do I Think Jim Fetzer is a Psy-Operator?

2009-07-24T08:18:00.000-07:00

I know Jim Fetzer as well as anyone in 9/11 truth circles. I spoke at his conference, I've been on his show a dozen times, he's been to my house. Jim fetzer is a psy-operator, a very important part of the controlled opposition that we know must exist in the 9/11 coverup.

Fetzer has been publishing his list of evidence for video fakery. He cites September Clues, which is full of mistakes and strawmen, like "pixel perfect match", and "missing frames", and "line penciled in", and which now promotes the diabolical "total animation theory", with "moving bridges" and "missing skylines", and claiming the 9/11 videos were completely animated by some unknown advanced technique.

Fetzer also promotes the hologram theory, which is physically impossible, and he knows it.

I, of course, have written a book length treatise compiling the correct evidence for no plane crashes and video fakery. It is published online for all to experience. I have discussed this material ad nauseum with Fetzer, on his show, and presented him with multiple revised versions. The entire project stemmed from HIS request for me to author a chapter in his alleged forthcoming book.

And yet, Dr. Fetzer refuses to include a link to this treatise. Why would that be? Why would Dr. Fetzer promote the dubious material, and not the scholarly work?

There are critics of my work. In my opinion, none of the criticism stands up to scrutiny, but that's a bit beside the point here. There's plenty of criticism of September Clues also.

"Impossible Speed" is a good argument, but only applies to a stock 767. It leaves open the possibility of some modified aircraft (Anthony Lawson's hangout).

"Impossible Entry" is a brilliant argument, and applies to any aircraft, but Fetzer never gets around showing the impossible video frame, the "magically healing columns" frame from Hezarkhani. I have repeatedly explained why there is more than sufficient resolution to see the hole in the tower, if it were there.

The goal of the psy-operators is to protect the truth, spinning all seekers off into some false territory. Observing the behavior of Fetzer and all the other ops is the perfect compass pointing to the truth, you just need to know how to read it.

Tension + Extreme Temperature

2009-07-18T20:14:00.000-07:00

This shriveled up beam was a horizontal floor support in Bankers Trust, which was never on fire. Judy Wood wonders how this could have happened, and blames it on directed energy weapons for some reason.

Higher res version of shriveled beam picture

The explanation is as straightforward as it is horrific. The horizontal beam is under great TENSION. The shriveling is exactly what we would expect if that segment were very hot, and the tension was released suddenly. Since Bankers Trust was never on fire, the question is, how could falling material from WTC2 heat that beam in one second?

Answer: Only a nuclear reaction could explain it. Falling nuclear material got close to the beam and raised its temperature very, very quickly in one area. This area became soft, one end breaks, tension is lost, and it shrivels up.

Fetzer Show 7-8-2009

2009-07-08T12:05:00.000-07:00

Link to mp3 Archive of Show

How we know that video fakery of some kind has to have taken place

$100,000 Amateur Video Challenge

Nine extraordinary compositional features

Pinocchio's Nose

Magically Healing Columns

Over-Under Puffball Contradiction

Theory of how it was done by compositing

Live, real time shots

Edited (non-live) shots

Why this approach is superior to other alternatives

No Flying Object

Total Animation Theory?

Thin Air Holograms?

Psychological Resistance to Video Compositing Theory

2009-06-29T09:14:00.001-07:00

The following article was adapted directly from Brian White's movie review of the Ken Jenkins DVD "Overcoming People's Psychological Resistance to 9/11 Truth" (see here). Jenkins is a supporter of the 9/11 airplane hoax. After some interaction with Jenkins in an email discussion group, and becoming familiar with his theory, it appeared to me that Jenkins himself was psychologically resistant to the truth about video compositing in the same way others are resistant to the "inside job" in general. The best way to portray this irony was to use Jenkins (and White's) own words, with relevant changes. The present article is thus a work of criticism and parody. Copyrighted material by White and Jenkins is used here without permission, under the doctrine of Fair Use, U.S.C. Title 17, §107 (see here).

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

Psychological Resistance to Video Compositing Theory

Important understanding of the human factor in the spread of uncomfortable verities

Adapted by Ace Baker

All truth goes through three stages, first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third it is accepted as self-evident. —Arthur Schopenhauer

Everyone—well everyone who's examined the evidence with at least a 30% open mind—has his own story of what led him to conclude that the US govern-media was complicit and culpable in the crimes committed on 9/11/2001, including the insertion of fake airplane images into video.  In due course I succumbed with most Americans to the govern-media propaganda of the official conspiracy theory. That theory still stands tall, as most people simply don’t value truth.

  According to a Zogby poll in September 2007, 51% want Congress to probe Bush and Cheney's role in the 9/11 attacks, clearly demonstrating people’s irrational belief that “Congress” somehow represents the interest of “the people”.

7 out of 10 fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous disintegration of World Trade Center Building 7 (which, like the twin towers, was not struck by any airplane). Clearly the forces of psychological operations are continuing to warp the minds of the American people, so the urgency is still high for us to make 9/11 Video Compositing Theory nearly universal... so we can move on and build a peaceful, benevolent, libertarian tomorrow.   Toward that end, Ace Baker—a well known music composer, 9/11 lecturer, and creator of “9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera—has put together this adaped aritcle to remind us of the human factor in the spread of ideas, and in particular the major obstacles we face in getting out the good word about 9/11 Video Compositing Theory. Lack of evidence, we find is not the limiting factor. Fundamentally, people do not want to believe the obvious truth.   First, let's understand what the evidence tells us 9/11 was: a psychological operation (psy op), which is a term used by secret services like the CIA for a class of operations intended to manipulate the emotions of populations; it is a form of mind control. The specific intention of 9/11 was to terrorize the American people into supporting a so-called war on terror, to replace the cold war and provide a blank check for the American state to attack anyone, anywhere it wishes—the Neoconservative dream come true.   As we watched the events of 9/11 unfold on the news, most of us were traumatized by the unrelenting sequence of dramatic spectacle of destruction. Many of us were horrified into feeling "will my loved ones and I be next?" The buildings had to explode as they did, disintegrated into ultra-fine dust, because if they had stood, the subliminal message would have been we're invulnerable. We had be made to feel vulnerable, thus to yield our liberties and lives to a powerful government/military/media who alone would be able to protect us.   Why the need for a psy op? Because the people don't want war.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war. That is understood, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." — Herman Goering, Nazi Reichmarshall and Lutwaffe Chief at the Nuremberg Trials

Ken Jenkins has presented a statement supposedly made by Julius Caesar, that according to Snopes is apocryphal (of questionable authenticity). But it's one of those statements that expresses a universal characteristic of political power, especially in regard to the war/patriotism tension, so I'm using it:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so."  — el maximus liderus anonymous

So what we're dealing with here in the minds and hearts of many Americans, not to mention other peoples of the planet, is fear, plain and simple. The only antidote to fear is reason, but in order to work its cure and reach minds we need to be caring of hearts. So what are these obstacles to reason, to understanding? I adapt what was originally laid out by Ken Jenkins, with gentle modification, as follows:

0. Many people simply don't WANT to believe in 9/11 Video Compositing Theory... or stolen elections truth, or weapons of mass destruction truth, etc. Want implies desires, preferences, drives, needs, motivations. As Maslow and other have shown, security and safety figure very highly in our hierarchy of wants and needs. "Even if what you say about Video Compositing Theory is true, I won't believe it." To accept that our own govern-media, which is supposed to protect and inform us, will kill us, greatly reduces our sense of security. It's scary, even terrifying. People don't want to go there, they don't want to think about it or hear about it.  For this obstacle it is most productive to respond with sympathy and understanding. Go through your own experience of fear and sadness that you had to fight through. Point out they were already afraid of terrorists; that threat is replaced, not added to, by the implications of 9/11 Video Compositing Theory.

0. By questioning the official airplane story of 9/11, we are questioning the foundations of many of our fellow citizens' belief systems regarding our government, our media, and our country—especially its depiction of foreign policy in the news. Such questioning of these foundations is far more profound than say questioning a war. It's a major paradigm shift. To question the official 9/11 airplane myth is fundamentally revolutionary. As such, it risks a period of chaos, which many find scary.  Stress that questioning the official airplane story is deeply patriotic. Establish things they do believe: e.g. 70-80% believe that the official story of the Kennedy assassination is a lie. As a specialist on the Kennedy assassination, Ken Jenkins was swayed to 9/11 half-truth by multiple similarities between the CIA's plot against Kennedy and 9/11. He mentions “light chaos” and “dark chaos”; in Jenkins’ mind there are advantages to having the truth come out slowly (i.e. continuing to cover up certain truths) to avoid “dark chaos”. Important to commit to long term work in 9/11 Video Compositing Theory.

0. Epidemic apathy and complacency—encouraged by systems of media, education, government, health care, etc. Average US citizen does not believe "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance," to paraphrase Jefferson. I.e. part of the resistance to 9/11 Video Compositing Theory is people might have to do something about it; better not to take action.  This is part of the growing up process, to realize that if our ruling class can insert fake airplane images into news video, then kill 3000 of our countrymen, one's survival as a free human being may depend on facing such reality actively. Grow up, get involved.

0. Media WMD (weapons of mass deception)—Huge obstacle to understanding the truth of 9/11 Video Compositing Theory and many other crimes. Book Into the Buzzsaw, about 18 award-winning journalists who were prevented by corporate ownership form reporting major, incredibly revealing news. Some even fired or laid off. Includes Greg Palast, Gary Webb, many others who have won numerous awards including several Emmys and a Pulitzer.  Ken Jenkins talks about the coverage of Gulf War 1; he realized we were in deep trouble because war was reduced to a video game, with no reports of the carnage we saw in Vietnam... which is credited with (eventually) ending that war.  "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." —Former CIA director, William Colby  In the early days of the Cold War, late 40s, CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort was headed by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Phillip Graham (publisher of the Washington Post).  A study showed TV generates misperceptions of facts and Fox is the worst among equals. The three misperceptions were 1) 9/11 was connected to Iraq, 2) Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and 3) the people of the world supported the invasion of Iraq.      Possible solution, rupudiate Ken Jenkins’ admitted policy of delayed-truth, and commit to a search for the facts of the matter, wherever they lead, whatever they imply. The CIA owns the media, the media lies, video compositing is a great way to lie. Grow up.

0. Stigma of conspiracies—conspiracy is a plan or agreement by two or more parties to commit an illegal or subversive action. Primary alternatives to conspiracy theory are incompetence theory and coincidence theory. It's just as crazy to believe nothing is a conspiracy as to think everything is.   Recent conspiracies: California energy crisis, the Enron/Arthur Anderson/Worldcom, etc., stolen 2000, 2002, 2004 elections, 9/11 (the official story is a conspiracy theory). As we know other lies created by conspiracies of power have served as pretexts for war or oppression of peoples:   — Pearl Harbor (what pushed Jenkins over the edge)  — Operation Northwoods — Vietnam's Gulf of Tonkin — The Reichstag Fire — Sinking of the Lusitania — Battleship Maine explosion — False story of stabbing incubator babies (for Gulf War 1)  — Long list of state-sponsored terrorism   And now we know about the Iraq war lies, which helps to overcome the stigma of conspiracy about the Bushoviks.

0. The Big Lie and the Colossal Evil—we tend to be psychologically traumatized and disarmed by catastrophes, whether created by political leaders or real attacks. When the former, the scale of the event and/or the deceit of the event are so wholesale the people cannot believe anyone would insert fake planes into video footage.  "The masses indulge in petty falsehoods every day but it would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths... the bigger the lie, therefore, the likelier it is to be believed."—Adolph Hitler  "The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." —J. Edgar Hoover   Antidote: tough to find. You have to encourage people to trust their own rational judgment. But beware: cognitive dissonance can create a belief in irrational things, such as airplanes passing through tower walls with no crash physics. This is Ken Jenkins’ area of resistance. He considers the insertion of a fake airplane into video more complex than the insertion of a real airplane into a steel tower. Perhaps if he studies “The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites”, he might realize that the evidence for compositing is overwhelming.

0. 9/11 Video Compositing Theory is a confrontation to the self image of many Americans, of their country, and of themselves as (flag waving) Americans. The self image Americans have been sold is that we're the good guys, the white hats, the bringers of democracy and freedom.  Antidote: Iraq war lies, torture, secrecy in government, rendition, outing of agents, depleted uranium, shabby treatment of soldiers, covering up of massacres, weapons in space, the debt and the sinking dollar, the Katrina response, and many other incidents are breaking down self-image at least as far as the federal government is concerned.

0. As if We Were Grownups—we consistently elect candidates and watch newscasters who tell us what children would want to hear: that everything is okay, that little is expected of them, that they can go out and shop and play and watch the news, and that they'll be informed. They're expected to be seen and not heard, to pay their taxes, to take their flu shots, and to not question what they see on the news. Americans are encouraged to be children emotionally, means government is parental, news is factual, whether strict father or smothering mother.   Antidote: Grow up.

0. Most everyone we introduce to 9/11 Video Compositing Theory now has believed the limited hangout story for years—to accept the truth they have to admit they were duped, deceived, and manipulated all that time. That brings up questions of gullibility, naïvete, lack of perceptiveness, obliviousness, etc. Most of us have resistance to admitting such blindness/weakness.   Antidote: Most of us did not get 9/11 right away, let alone Video Compositing Theory, so we can lead with a confession of our own.

0. Emotional investment and ego investment—we are often emotionally invested in our worldview as well as in specific beliefs. We get rewards, payoffs for believing certain things, and have to give up that payoff to change the belief. There is also the ego investment that we get ego strokes, we're better than others, by holding a belief.  Antidote: one of the toughest psychological problems to overcome is the attachment to ego, a general approach of being concerned and staying in the now is desirable.

0. Unconscious emotional beliefs—both liberals and conservatives, a characteristic of partisan thought, exploited by campaign consultants and advertisers. Political thinking is often predominantly emotional, not interested in the facts. 9/11 Video Compositing Theory is very emotional.  Antidote: take time and be deliberate, study the evidence, try to put yourself in the person's shoes, keep cool, recognize your own hot buttons. Take the long view.

0. The rabbit-hole resistance—e.g. the Matrix. To believe 9/11 Video Compositing Theory, the rabbit hole gets deep, e.g. our media is corrupt and complicit, there is a powerful secret shadow government, most of our leaders are far more corrupt and malicious than we want to believe. Others: Kennedy, RFK, MLK, stolen elections, Wellstone, UFOs and abductions, moon landing, chem trails, Oklahoma City bombing, 7/7, Y2K, vaccines, AIDS, mind control, IRS/Federal Reserve, NWO, etc. A lot other stuff down there and it's hard to tell what's what, easier to stay out of the rabbit hole.   Antidote: Up the rabbit hole—the voluntary society. We don’t need a coercive state, Read Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and many others. To begin making the state disappear, stop voting.

0. Working on changing the world without also doing the inner work of changing and healing ourselves and our personal relationships is far less efficient and effective. Urgency vs. Panic as motivation. Driven by many things, as there are many crises happening all at once right now. We need to encourage and be aware of the latter.  

0. Traits of Panic:  exhausted, tense worry, frantic stressful, insecure ominously close deadlines nervous, anxious catastrophic thinking worst case scenarios apprehensive, foreboding must, need, have to.. martyrhood pessimistic, dread terrified  Traits of Urgency: energizing, exciting concern secure enough time fun, interesting, exciting calm, serene, peaceful playful want to, would like to, would prefer optimistic happy

Hologram Psy-Op in Full Gear

2009-06-27T09:31:00.000-07:00

An email from Jim Fetzer to the crowd:

All,

A nice example where each of us seems to be fixated on our own preferred
theory! Jeff [Hill] has done brilliant work on establishing confirmation for
the impossible speed [of UA175], so he KNOWS that the speed shown for the 767 that is supposed to be in the videos violates laws of aerodynamics. Now he
suggests that it is possible to combine AUTHENTIC VIDEOS with IMPOSSIBLE
EVENTS if the images that are presented of these impossible events were
produced by a HOLOGRAM, which can fly faster than aerodynamically poss-
ible, melt into buildings, and violate Newton's laws! I think this is
a fascinating hypothesis. If he is right, we are left with HOLOGRAMS!
I don't know if he's right or wrong, but it would certainly explain a
lot of data and is an alternative explanation we should take seriously.
And John Lear is well-positioned to advance arguments in its support.

Jim [Fetzer]

Double Thinking the Physically Impossible

2009-06-04T01:17:00.000-07:00

John Lear and Jim Fetzer are working hard trying to convince us that the 9/11 airplanes could have been holograms projected into thin-air.

Thin air holograms are physically impossible. For a projected image to reach the eyes (or a camera), it must reflect off of some surface. Semi-transparent screens work for 3D teleconferencing. Particulate matter in the air can create a vaporous reflective region. You can use mirrors. But there is simply no way to get around the fact that the photons need to enter people's eyeballs.

There is no earthly reason to suspect that the military have image technology beyond that of Hollywood. But even if they did, they cannot defy physics.

It is more reasonable to think the military have aircraft more advanced than do the commercial airlines. If you are willing to consider the possibility of something thought to be physically impossible, why not just believe they have a 767 that can fly through steel columns like thin air? It's no more ridiculous than thin-air holograms.

Why would the the kindly professor Fetzer reject the presence of real airplanes based on the observed impossible physics, yet promote equally impossible thin-air holograms, especially when the correct solution (video compositing) stands written up and un-refuted?

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/

Furthermore, even assuming the existence of thin-air holograms, there are several data points that rule out this explanation anyway.

1. The nose out. Perfectly consistent with a real-time video compositing mistake, as explained in detail by me. How does thin air holography account for Pinnochio's Nose?

2. No Plane in the wide shot. They accidentally broadcast the wide shot from Chopper 5. Perfectly consistent with video compositing, as it is not possible to composite in real-time on a zooming shot like that. Other videos show the plane approaching during the time of the Chopper 5 wide shot. How could the hologram appear in some shots, and not in Chopper 5?

3. The over-under puffball contradiction. Perfectly consistent with a misplaced layer mask in video compositing, how could a real live image appear above the explosion in the Hezarkhani video, and below the explosion in Fairbanks?

4. Unstable motion. The motion of the airplane in Chopper 5 becomes less stable when you stabilize the video. This is perfectly consistent with trying to do real-time compositing on a moving helicopter shot. The motion of a hologram would be smooth, just like a real airplane. How on earth could this motion become less stable after stabilizing the video?

Of course, believing in thin-air holograms gets the guilty news media off the hook. Again.

Thirty-eight fifty-six make ninety-four

2009-06-02T21:01:00.000-07:00

Come to my table periodically

Gaze into the dust, drink of strong tea

Empty the soul, free the heart, mind the head

Crush down the demon and bury him dead

Said the wise man pinning the lie to the floor

Thirty-eight fifty-six make ninety-four

Pluto poor peasant, a planet no more

Thirty-eight fifty-six make ninety-four

Try tea? Mmmm, Yes. Don't mind if I do

Sixty cups dirty before we are through

Sixty cups dirty, we usually have one

Behold in its glory, a miniature sun

Strong tea and seed-bread, so much on your plate

Ninety-four makes fifty-six thirty-eight

Bury him, lest he come crashing your gate

Ninety-four makes fifty-six thirty-eight

$100,000 Amateur Video Challenge

2009-04-28T21:26:00.001-07:00

Did you or someone you know shoot amateur video of an airplane crash on 9/11? If so, it could net you a hundred grand.

As readers of my work already know, I don't believe any airplanes crashed anywhere on 9/11. All of the airplane crash videos are video composites, says me. Prove me wrong, and make a quick $100,000 U.S.

The problem is none of the 9/11 airplane videos are available in their original quality. I highly suspect that this is due to the fact that reducing quality on a composite image is the best way to hide the messy fingerprints of the compositing process.

To sort it out, I offer this next in what has become a series of $100,000 challenges. To meet the challenge:

The video must show "UA175" hitting the south tower.
You must allow me to inspect the original tape on which the event was recorded. It must be originally recorded video on "mini DV", or other DV format.
The airplane video must match in quality the other videos present on the tape. Any attempt to copy onto the DV tape video that has been further compressed, or reduced in dimensions, or subjected to any unnecessary quality loss is grounds for disqualification.
You must allow me to create a high-quality, uncompressed digitization of the video, directly from the original tape.
You will grant to me a non-exclusive license to publish the footage.

Jennifer Spell? Evan Fairbanks? Luc Courchesne? Michael Hezarkhani? Any takers?

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

Applicants may contact me via the email link, top right.

-Ace Baker

The Death of Reality

2009-04-26T10:00:00.000-07:00

The other day my daughter asked me how I thought future historians would characterize the current era. I thought for a moment and answered, "The death of reality".

In case you didn't know, a software tool called "autotune" can give any singer perfect pitch. It's so easy and so overused, a Brooklyn musician has created "Autotune the News". Katie Couric, Newt Gingrich et al. singing passable R&B ditties. Of course it sounds artificial, but have you listened to many of today's hit artists? Autotune is everywhere.

Animators have been inserting realistic images like dinosaurs into movies and TV shows for well over a decade now. We all know this. For some reason, most people have not connected the dots and realized that the govern-media has the same technology, and will use it as needed. Perhaps many are laboring under the antique fantasy of an independent news media.

The media is a de-facto government agency, the U.S. Department of Mind Control. On 9/11 they inserted realistic airplane animations into live video of an exploding tower and called it "news". Just as they avail themselves of the most advanced aircraft and satellites, missiles and bombs, so too with video animation and compositing.

Animations of inanimate objects like airplanes or cars are today indistinguishable from those recorded on film or video. Animations of human beings are not quite there yet. There still can be subtle clues with the movement and in the complex visual details which betray the fakery.

But the day is not far off when computing horsepower and software ingenuity solves these problems, and allows for the creation of realistic virtual people, right down to every little hair and freckle. And then it will be just a matter of time before this is available in real-time. Entertainment companies like, say Disney, will wrestle with the ethical dilemma of creating virtual movie stars. Virtual stars don't eat, and they don't demand a huge contract.

News rooms will have the same kinds of temptations. Why not serve the master by digitizing a new Hitler?

What then? How can we ever again trust that the images we see on the news are real? Hopefully, we won't. Hopefully we will at long last see the news media for what it is: The untrustworthy propaganda arm of the government. Hopefully the death of reality will be the birth of the new liberty. That is the complete distrust and disobedience of all things governmental, especially the "news" media.

This is my dream.

Why They Dumped Out of Delay

2009-03-08T22:26:00.000-07:00

Beep Beep. Don Dahler is at the WTC, speaking to Charlie Gibson and he is cutoff mid-sentence by two beeps. He begins talking again. Then the airplane comes in. Gibson, watchig a monitor in the studio, says "That looks like a second plane" Dahler says "I did not see a plane, that just exploded".

The two beeps and the cutoff sound very much like ABC is dumping out of delay. Live TV broadcasts are typically delayed. The actual live signal is run through a delay circuit of say 10 seconds. Live talk radio has the same feature. If something is heard or seen that is unfit for the airwaves, the engineer has 10 seconds to switch the delay off, going completely live, and bypassing the offending material.

Why, oh why would they switch out of delay just before the second fake airplane strike? Seems like they would have wanted that delay for insurance, just in case something went wrong (like Chopper 5). But no. They dumped out of delay, certainly on ABC, and I suspect on all the networks. Why?

It's so obvious. Teresa Renault. Talking to Bryant Gumbel as the second "plane" hits the South Tower. We are supposed to believe she is witnessing the airplane out of her window in Chelsea. If she really was seeing an airplane out of her window, it wouldn't matter if the networks were still in delay. She would see the plane live, she would report it live, and her voice would be synchronized with the video of the airplane. "Oh my god there's another one".

But if Renault is watching the plane on TV, it matters very much. For if she is watching a delayed signal, then her voice will be 10 seconds behind the video.

The same is true for those voices in Chopper 5, and any of the other channels with callers on line. They dumped out of delay because they needed those people watching television to pretend they were seeing it with their own eyes.

What Idiots Fall for Stimulus Hoax?

2009-02-18T20:50:00.000-08:00

Now it's time for the latest "Stimulus" deal from your government. Anyone capable of even a tiny amount of economic reasoning can figure out that this is just another method the elite to steal property.

The supposed idea of an economic stimulus plan is to raise the overall prosperity of the country by having the government print new money and spend it. The increased government spending creates new demand for those products and services that the government buys, which in turn will create new jobs for people working to fill that demand. These new workers will have new money to spend, which will increase demand for whatever they choose to buy, which will create more new jobs, and so on. This is known as the multiplier effect, and it was thought up by Keynes, and it's false.

If it were possible to raise the overall prosperity of a country by printing and spending new money, then you could not explain why there is even one poor country anywhere in the world. For all that country would have to do is print a lot of money and spend it. In fact, you could not explain why there is even one single poor person anywhere in the world, for all that we would need to do is print $1,000,000 bills and give everybody one and make everybody rich.

It doesn't work like that. If you gave everybody $1,000,000 of new money, there still would not be any more houses, or food, or clothes, or any goods or any services than there was before. All that would happen is that the price of everything would go way up.

The cause of the current financial meltdown is the Federal Reserve System. By inflating the money supply, it artificially lowers the interest rate, which makes certain investments appear profitable when they are not. The Austrian economists have a complete theory of the business cycle (see Rothbard for example), and they alone predicted this crises. I highly recommend Thomas E. Woods' new book Meltdown.

Printing and spending new money does not have the ability to generate new wealth, but it certainly does have the ability to redistribute existing wealth. The net effect of the "stimulus" spending will be to transfer real wealth into the hands of the early receivers of the new money, and out of the hands of the late receivers.

In other words, the government and the Fed and their friends are stealing from everyone else.

Again.

As usual.

He Gave Up His Life to Prove No Planes

2009-02-12T13:58:00.000-08:00

This from an anonymous author. I can't verify any of this.

I wanted to relay a very brief personal story. I was living in Tampa after 911. Six months after 911 a young man flew a plane into the Bank Of America building in Tampa. I followed very closely what information was being released by the law enforcement, military, and the local media. I even contacted friends and workers withing those areas to find out even more information. What I found differed quite a bit from what I had read and been shown on tv.

The media and military told me that he was a depressed child. That he had left a suicide note claiming support for Osama Bin Laden, even though the media and law enforcement would not release the note for verification.

I found out that the young man gave up his life to prove that planes could not do the damage that was seen on 911. You wrote a note alright and it said exactly that. It said that he could care less one way or another about Osama but that he couldn't handle his own government and media lying to him to stage wars and death.

Sure enough, when his plane hit the BOA building it smashed into many sections that then fell to the area below. I actually saw the newscast from inside the office space that he hit. A desk 5 feet inside the window was untouched. What the young man wrote in his note proved that a plane could never do the kind of damage that was seen at the WTC's.

What happened? After speaking with reporters I found out that not even they were allowed to see the wreckage and took the word of law enforcement for what was on the note. The mother won a law suit against the makers of the depression drug he was on (6 million US children are on the same drug). That can only be described as payola. By getting that money she had to sign documents that said she would never talk about or sue anyone else with regards to this "accident". This young man gave his life to prove that his own government was lying, and they lied to cover up his statements?

Why Does Genghis Want Us to Think That?

2009-02-05T20:34:00.001-08:00

click image for larger version

Genghis is trying to get us to think that they put the wrong plane into the CNN shot, Park Foreman, etc. I've put a model 767 into CNN for comparison. The angle is almost perfect, maybe off by some fraction of a degree. Mine is not painted in UA colors at all, so no surprise the colors don't match.

I do find it suspicious that the bottom of the CNN plane is so gray, not blue like UA livery. Color matching is a common problem in compositing, de-saturating the colors down close to gray is an easy way to get overlaid objects to blend in.

But for crying out loud, it's a Boeing 767-200. There is not one detail on that plane to suggest it is anything other than a 767-200. It is patently absurd to think the composi-traitors would show us anything but a 767-200. They have flight simulators and stock models of 767's the same way we do. There's no way they would screw this part up. They screwed other parts up.

Genghis is just giving the "debunkers" ammunition to discredit no-planers, as it is quite easy to show that he is wrong about this. Genghis, the 9/11 airplane videos all show a 767. Every one of them.

We know the 9/11 airplane videos are fake, but not because of any wrong airplane models used.

Genghis on the New and Improved Chopper 5

2009-02-04T17:42:00.000-08:00

Last night I had a conversation with Genghis6199. Genghis, supposedly a no-planer, is a very well-known 9/11 researcher and videomaker. Here is his forum. Have a listen to our talk, and see if you don't think Genghis is trying to bully me into surrendering my theory for no good reason, while trying to rehabilitate the airplane hoax.

Ace Baker / Genghis conversation, part 1
Ace Baker / Genghis conversation, part 2
Ace Baker / Genghis conversation, part 3

I wanted to talk to Genghis about the NEW AND IMPROVED version of Chopper 5, the one with the plane in the wide shot. One previously available version (Hoffman/Salter) had no plane in the wide shot at all, while another previously available version (Avery/Lawson) had a plane visible in 3 frames during the zoom in only. The new version (Dr. Ebbets) is an interlaced version of the same VHS source as Avery/Lawson.

In an email to me, Genghis said of the new and improved Dr. Ebbets version:

"it's a legitimate find. it's authenticity is not in doubt."

This seems quite an odd comment for anyone, much less a supposed no-planer. This new version has appeared out of the blue, we have no idea who actually has the VHS tape from which it was made, or who digitized it. Why would Genghis not at least SUSPECT that an airplane was added to the wide shot? I think that's just what they did. I wouldn't be A BIT SURPRISED if they come out with a "new and improved" version of CNN Ghostplane. One that shows the columns breaking!

We do know that the new Dr. Ebbets version is cropped differently than the previous Avery/Lawson version. Why? It's suspicious, because the far right-hand edge (where the plane comes in) is cropped away now.

The chroma (color) of the Dr. Ebbets version is accurate, like its frame-blended predecessor Avery/Lawson. The Hoffman/Salter version has been brightened. So the new Dr. Ebbets ought to have finer detail than Hoffman/Salter, but strangely the detail is less fine. This strongly suggests that the quality of Dr. Ebbets was reduced, then enlarged back up to 720 x 480 dimensions. Why?

In fact, I not only SUSPECT someone added an airplane to Dr. Ebbets, I can prove it. The proof comes in attempting to recreate the lesser-quality versions from the higher-quality versions. I've already shown that brightening the old Avery/Lawson does NOT disappear the airplane, therefore brightening did not erase any airplane in the wide shot from Hoffman/Salter.

Genghis and I get into this in our conversation. And we learn several other very interesting things about Genghis.

Genghis says Chopper 5 is fake, but doesn't really have a reason why.
Genghis thinks perhaps a missile was used, but doesn't explain how they made it look like a 767.
Genghis says the image in CNN Ghostplane is not the image of a 767, that it keeps changing shape, and doesn't match up correctly with a known image of a 767.
Genghis thinks the fake plane might be a hologram.
Genghis thinks it is physically possible to see a hologram projected into thin air.

The laws of physics dictate that thin-air holograms are strictly impossible, because any projected image needs something to reflect off of in order to go into your eye (or the camera). If Genghis can suspend the laws of physics to allow for thin-air holograms, why not just pretend that planes can meld into steel and concrete buildings? And that those buildings can then crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight?

$$$ Reward for 9/11 Airplane Home Recordings

2009-02-03T14:21:00.000-08:00

Did you record any major network news broadcast at 9:02-9:03 am Eastern time on 9/11/2001? This is the time the second alleged airplane struck WTC2.

I am not interested in any posted internet archives. I am not interested in any replays. I am only interested if you recorded a television news broadcast on your home VCR or other video recording device, at 9:02-9:03 Eastern.

The reward money is negotiable. I will wish to obtain a high-quality digitization of your tape. Please contact me via the email link at the upper right of this blog.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

Matt FInds "New" Version of Chopper 5

2009-01-29T05:51:00.000-08:00

update: I've just had a phone conversation with Genghis, and learned that an interlaced copy of the "new" Chopper 5 is available. It's in MPEG2 format, and available here. It is not frame-blended. It is still a digitization from what is most assuredly a VHS source, the same VHS source as the original Dylan Avery version, as evidenced by a distinct analog noise band just before the fade to black.

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

Matt, webmaster of 911conspiracy.tv, has come up with what he calls a "new version" of the Chopper 5 footage. It's significant, he says, because you can see an airplane in the wide shot. "No plane in the wide shot" is, of course, one of the proofs of video compositing on 9/11. Matt, a no planer (I think), says this indicates a real flying object, like a missile, invalidating my proof of no flying object.

Discussion Thread at Pumpitout.

Link to download footage.

Indeed, a small blurry flying object is now seen in the wide shot of this footage, and I have no doubt it originated as the image of a 767. I have no reason at all to think it is any real object, and every reason to think it was added to the footage.

1. This is not really a new version of Chopper 5. It is a somewhat better quality copy of the Dylan Avery / Anthony Lawson version. It has the exact same VHS-style noise event before the fade-to-black. The other known version - Jim Hoffman / Eric Salter - has no such noise event, therefore the noise did not occur at the source. This "new" version is obviously the same old Avery / Lawson.

2. Like the previously available version of Avery / Lawson, it is frame blended. Each existing frame of video has been created by blending together what were originally two separate video images, taken 1/59.94 seconds apart. This causes the airplane images to be blurry and elongated. It's terrible for trying do things like measure velocity. I suspect that's by design.

3. Unlike the previously available version of Avery / Lawson, there are no duplicated frames.

4. While the previously available version of Avery / Lawson did not show the plane in the wide shot, you could see an airplane image for about 3 frames during the zoom in. We knew that this added image had been frame blended differently than the overall footage, because a particular airplane image appeared on 3 separate frames, instead of just 2.

5. We also knew that the tiny airplane image had been added after the fact, because it does not appear in the Hoffman/Salter version. It is true that the Hoffman / Salter version was brightened significantly, and brightening could certainly cause a tiny airplane image to disappear. Or not, depending.

Click image for full size.

To test whether or not Hoffman / Salter could have been brightened enough to disappear the tiny airplane, I tried to brighten and color-match Avery / Lawson. I was able to match colors pretty closely, and make Avery / Lawson considerably BRIGHTER than Hoffman / Salter, and still not disappear the tiny airplane. Therefore brightening did not disappear any airplane image in Hoffman / Salter.

I suspect there were problems in attempting to add matching airplanes to the two different VHS versions of Chopper 5. It was decided to add a plane to Avery / Lawson, de-interlace and frame blend it for confusion, while brightening Hoffman / Salter without adding an airplane, and leave it interlaced.

6. The "new" version comes complete with a silly story about somebody named "Dr. Ebbets" who allegedly hounded the networks and used his connections to obtain the footage.

Dr. Ebbets Story

Why then would he end up with another version of the same old VHS tape copy? OK "Dr. Ebbets", who are you? Can I please talk to you? Could you please make an interlaced copy of your "new" video? Better yet, could you please use your connections to get broadcast quality?

7. "Dr. Ebbets" evidently created a DVD called "911 As it Happened - A Composite". I suspect the use of the word "composite" is another information warfare tactic, diffusing the important meaning of "composite" in the context of 9/11.

The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites

8. Matt is touting the "new" version as "near broadcast quality". It's nothing of the sort. This was recorded on VHS tape, then digitized, then de-interlaced and frame-blended, and finally compressed with mp4 compression. Broadcast quality is none of that.

The govern-media just digs itself in deeper. But don't worry guys, almost nobody's paying attention.

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

Received this email from Matt

From: "xxxxxxxxx"
To: acebaker1234 [At] yahoo {dot} com
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:38:34 PM
Subject: plane in the wide shot

Ace,

Matt here, after just reading your post at 911movement:
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=539&st=540
... which was linked at pumpitout:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1140450/3/#new
... which is a thread I started after Genghis pointed out the plane in the
footage I found and pointed out to him:
http://z15.invisionfree.com/911taboo/index.php?showtopic=1059&st=0

Knowing your investment of time and energy in this piece of footage, I
thought I would tell you the story of finding the "new" version of the
Chopper 5 WTC 2nd hit footage.

You must have already searched and found the source:

http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1772645/?report_comment=7596344&show_files=&page=1&rel=1232820944

...and read the statement by Dr. Ebbetts, who made the DVD "September 11,
2001 - As It Happened - A Composite"

I googled (scroogled, really: http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm)
that title, which is in the "more info" for the YouTube video "September
11, 2001 - As It Happened - The South Tower Attack" -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lKZqqSI9-s -- after having scroogled it
many times. This past weekend that search picked up a brand new, day-old
torrent. I jumped on it.

I'm sorry to hear doubts as to its authenticity (see Simon Shack's post
linked above), but the quality of the footage from that torrent is
undeniably top notch.

Thought I'd share.

Thanks again for all you've done. I'm glad to help here, even though the
"no plane in the wide shot" theory seems to be defunct.

Simon wants to carry on the legacy, obviously. I hope you don't, perhaps
out of my own gullibility in believing the authenticity of the torrent/DVD
files. I do believe it, nonetheless.

Carry on.

Sincerely,
Matt

Danny Romero and Libertarian Truth Allergy

2009-01-27T10:58:00.000-08:00

Danny Romero is the boss at Freedom Underground Radio. Right after my suicide performance art piece, he suspended host Jim Fetzer. He posted a message explaining his decision. I find it very revealing.

"I could be wrong but, my gut told me that this [Ace Baker's Suicide Performance Art] was about to create an avalanche of alternative 911 theorists to come in and mentally masturbate over whose 911 theory was correct." - Danny Romero, Freedom Underground.

Searching for the truth about the most important event in history is "mental masturbation"? An avalanche of interest in an internet radio show is a bad thing to Danny Romero? I would have thought an "avalanche" of people "coming in" would be a good thing. Hmmmm.

"This would have negatively impacted the direction FU radio wants to go and I feel strongly that Jim was being set up to be victimized by these people too. I'm not opposed to debate but, we've already seen this fight before and it was negative, divisive and smacked of something more." - Danny Romero, Freedom Underground

What debate? 9/11 Truth? No-planes? Of course it smacks of something more. It smacks of a controlled opposition propaganda machine.

"We all understand that a crime was committed on 911 and was never properly investigated, but these fights will be a waste of precious time and will only serve to distract us away from the things we need to pay attention to at this critical moment." -Danny Romero

I see. Forget what the "avalanche of alternative 9/11 theorists" have to say, pay attention to what Danny Romero thinks is important.

Danny Romero has a right to run Freedom Underground any way he wants, including firing host Jim Fetzer for any reason, or for no reason at all. But just because it's called "Freedom Underground" doesn't necessarily mean it's about freedom, or that's it's underground.

Fetzer was not and is not a good fit for FU radio. They are anti-state libertarians, as am I. Fetzer has revealed himself to be a leviathan government-hugging statist.

It's profoundly ironic that the anti-state libertarians, like FU, and more importantly the Mises Scholars, and the Lew Rockwell guys, are allergic to 9/11 truth. As I pointed out in my 2007 article on Morgan Reynolds' site, 9/11 truth would be, by far, the best method to convince large numbers of people that government is harmful and unnecessary.

What are the libertarians afraid of?

Anarchy?

Investigation Allegory 9 -1-1

2009-01-25T16:11:00.000-08:00

Another piece by "Anonymous". I do wonder who this writer might be. Hmmmm. Oh well, enjoy.

This week on CSI:NYC….the crime lab team is investigating a murder at ground zero in NYC….let’s tune in:

SGT: “Whatta we got son?”

Officer: “Well…it looks like this woman was stabbed with a knife that was held by this gentlemen over there. “

Sgt: “Were there any witnesses?”

Officer: “Yeh….the whole room at the time of the stabbing was filled with officers conducting a training seminar on how to react after someone gets stabbed. They were all in town for a mock stabbing that was going to take place tomorrow”

Sgt: “That’s convenient. Were there any civilian witnesses and what did the 2 groups see?”

Officer: “Well….yes there were civilians….70% of all witnesses saw NO STABBING what so ever…while every officer saw the woman “fall” onto the knife herself?”

Sgt: “My…that is curious. Can we get any of these witnesses under oath?”

Officer: “No….the White House has issued a worldwide gag order to all officers, police, fireman, FBI, CIA, SS, NSA, FEMA, NTSB, FAA, and anyone remotely associated with this stabbing.”

Sgt: “What kind of knife was it? What should I tell the press? And did this man take out any insurance on this woman before the stabbing?”

Officer: “You’re gonna like this sarge. The same company and executives….manufactured the knife, OWN the media that you are about to talk to, AND were the underwriters for the life insurance policy on the woman taken out by the man just 6 weeks before the stabbing?”

Sgt: “OKaaaaaaaayyyyyy. Let’s just get a blood sample, test it, and release the results to the world to find out that it was actually the woman stabbed”.

Officer: “Well……we can’t do that boss. All the blood was ordered cleaned up and destroyed by the White House before you got here. The knife was confiscated and destroyed without any testing. All the carpet in the room was picked up and destroyed. And no verification of any blood, weapon, or even open testimony by the police can ever be verified without redaction or black-outs. The woman’s body was also destroyed. And the man who the witnesses saw…… committed “suicide” by jumping out of his 50 story building just moments ago. His body was also destroyed. The mayor is now arresting anyone taking pictures or video of the building, and the media is now saying a person who might be Islamic is now the real killer.

Sgt: “So what evidence do we have?”

Officer: “Well…..we have these witnesses…..though they completely contradict each other…..and apparently in just a few days and weeks we should be getting video from people who were in the room at the time that proves that it wasn’t even a knife at all but a car.”

Sgt: “This sounds like an open and shut case. Chalk another one up to the deception execution cycle. I’ll be down at the donut shop if you need me. Goodbye.”

The 9/11 Insurance Adjuster

2009-01-24T19:59:00.000-08:00

Here's a delightful little ditty sent to me by an anonymous reader. Enjoy.

Hypothetical phone call from an airline company to the airline insurance representative after 911:

IC: “Hello…How may I help you?”

AC: Yes….I have 4 planes insured with you guys and they all crashed on 911 and I was calling to see when I can get my insurance money for my loss.

IC: “OK….that’s horrible. Let’s see…. where did this happen?

AC: Well….2 planes hit the WTC’s in NYC another plane hit the Pentagon, and one crashed into a field in PA. When can I get my money?

IC: “Well here at Bob’s Plane insurance we want you to receive your money asap. All we will need to do is inspect and verify the wreckage and the ID numbers on the 4 planes so that we can get you your money as quickly as possible. What are the exact locations so that we can send out our inspectors?”

AC: Well…..that’s a problem. You see there is absolutely NO WRECKAGE of ANY KIND but we do have lots of eyewitnesses and lots of video and film. When can I get my money?

IC: “I understand sir. It’s just that to pay you all we must do is simply verify that the plane that crashed was the plane that you say it was. It’s simply a matter of looking at any of the 3.1 million pieces that make up a standard 767. If 4 of them crashed that should be pretty easy. That’s almost 13 million parts of aircraft. When can we inspect the wreckage?”

AC: Well….you can’t. We have eyewitnesses and video.

IC: “Sir I understand. It’s just that we have never paid a claim simply by an eyewitness or video. All we go by is the wreckage. Certainly there were black boxes or voice data recorders that we could verify other than witnesses or video?”

AC: “Are you calling all of our eyewitnesses liars? Are you calling all of our video, film, and photos faked and staged? Are you saying that the pain felt by the victims is somehow not real? Are saying that Bush lied and that you hate our troops?”

IC: “Sir…I understand…it’s just that you are calling about being paid millions of dollars with not one single piece of verifiable evidence of any kind. As an airline insurance company…you must understand that we would be out of business in minutes if all that was needed to file a claim was an eyewitness, a photo, and NO WRECKAGE. Can we at least inspect or test the sites?

AC: No…..take it or leave it. All we have is what the media told us and what our eyewitnesses said they may have seen…although none of them were under oath. When can we get our money?

IC: “Sir…with all due respects….call us when we can inspect ANY form of wreckage. Goodbye.”

AND NOW REAL LIFE: As of this writing not one dime has been paid to any of the airline companies that lost planes on 911. Why? Because the insurance companies investigating the crashes have NEVER VERIFIED A SINGLE PIECE OF WRECKAGE FROM ANY OF THE 4 PLANES AT ANY OF THE 4 LOCATIONS ON 911. They pay only by wreckage.

A Few Predictions on Lord Obama's Regime

2009-01-20T08:13:00.001-08:00

It's 8:13 am Pacific time as I begin to write, the coronation of his holiness Lord Obama is about to take place. Millions have gathered in the hopes of basking in his aura for a fleeting moment, cameras roll. The media have outdone themselves. The criminal syndicate that is government has never appeared more sacrosanct than right now. I want to vomit. Literally. Remember, these are the same media perps who put fake airplanes into video footage on 9/11, and called it "the news.

I have a few predictions for the Obama regime.

1. Health Care Takeover

I predict the media will ramp up support for socialized medicine by featuring stories of American children who allegedly died because they didn't have health insurance, and didn't get some operation. The same stories will show children in Canada or Sweden who are alive, happy and healthy, having received "free" treatment, paid for by their benevolent and wise government medical system.

2. Energy Taxes and Takeover

I predict the media will ramp up support for energy taxes with a series of stories about "global warming". They'll need to wait until summer to begin this in earnest.

3. Continued War

I predict the coverage of the war in Iraq will drastically change, giving the appearance that the war is over. American troops will never leave Iraq, ever. Similar to the Clinton regime, Obama will wage "small" wars on various little "enemies".

The slow deliberate march toward totalitarianism continues as Obama works on the domestic front, as Bush-Cheney worked primarily on the foreign front.

Bizarre Nerve Damage

2009-01-13T21:32:00.001-08:00

On October 11, 2002, in the “United States of America”, I had psychiatric surgery without consent and against my will. I underwent a procedure known as a “sympathectomy” or “ETS Surgery” at the hands of a surgeon named Richard J. “Rick” Fischel, MD, PhD. Besides a litany of physical disabilities, I suffer a profound loss of emotional response., I am unable to experience fear, thrills or excitement. While my intelligence was not affected, and some emotions remain intact, the “high end” of my emotion is permanently gone.

Sympathectomy involves cutting out a significant part of the sympathetic chain of ganglia, a part of the body I had never even heard of prior to 2002. Why would I undergo such a barbaric neurosurgery? This is embarrassing to reveal, but I’ve decided to go forward.

During my 20’s and early 30’s, I spent a lot of time touring, playing keyboards in bands. But after the 1993 world tour with Mother’s Finest, I decided to quit the road, and focus on writing and producing music. This meant going to pitch meetings and industry functions. It was new and exciting. And a bit nervous at times.

It was then that I developed an occasional problem where, in some of these nervous situations, I would begin sweating from my face. It wasn’t that I felt overly nervous at all. I was able to speak just fine, I wasn’t trembling. In fact, except for the sweating, I enjoyed being a little keyed up. It reminded me of the feeling of being backstage, about to go on.

But a few embarrassing sweat episodes made me begin to dread the thought of going to another meeting. It was then that I heard an ad on the radio talking about “hyperhidrosis” or “excessive sweating”. The ad promised a cure with a simple outpatient procedure. Intrigued, I did some googling and discovered a half-dozen websites of surgeons offering ETS surgery to treat hyperhidrosis. All of them claimed it was safe and effective.

I found a surgeon down in Orange County California by the name of Rick Fischel. Not only an MD, he was a PhD, rare for a surgeon. I met with Dr. Fischel and he confidently explained that he had developed a special form of ETS. He explained that there are two types of sweating – normal, physiologic sweating, and abnormal non-physiologic sweating. We need the normal sweating, he said, to keep the body cool. But the abnormal sweating was caused by a “little tiny nerve” inside the body. By cutting out this “little tiny nerve”, the abnormal sweating would go away, while the normal sweating would be left alone.

He said that a possible side effect of the surgery was something called “compensatory sweating”, where the lower part of the body has some “mild moistness”. But, he assured me, because of his special method, this problem had “gone away” in 100% of all his past patients.

This sales pitch from Dr. Fischel turned out to be nothing but a pack of lies and omissions. As it turns out, that “tiny little nerve” was actually 6 major sympathetic nerve ganglia, bundles of neurons, like little brains. There aren’t two types of sweating. ETS doesn’t just stop the excessive sweating, it permanently destroys ALL sweating on the top 1/3 of the body, forever. This is a dangerous and disturbing condition known as “anhidrosis”. My skin in this area is painfully dry at all times. My hands, especially, are so extraordinarily dry that I it’s all I can do to keep from screaming. Lotions and creams just don’t work for more than a few seconds.

But that is only the beginning of the nightmare. ETS surgery causes a "split body syndrome".

The sympathetic nervous system is responsible for our “fight or flight” response. These sympthetic ganglia are connected to the heart, and lungs, and blood vessels, and bones, and bone marrow, and sweat glands, thyroid gland, and fat tissue, and much more. Even goose bumps are controlled by them. So it’s predictable that each one of these systems will be altered. Indeed, that is the case.

My temperature regulation is completely fouled up. The top 1/3 of my body is routinely 10-12 degrees hotter than the lower 2/3, as thermal imaging reveals. My heart will not respond very much at all to emotion or exercise. My surface blood vessels are paralyzed wide open, unable to properly constrict, causing a ceaseless throbbing sensation in my hands. Levels of certain hormones are abnormally low in my blood and spinal fluid. My thyroid is completely denerved. All of this was confirmed during a week long study of me at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, in a protocol headed by Dr. David Goldstein.

I knew the minute I awoke from ETS surgery that I was altered. I noticed a strange feeling that I can only describe as a detachment from myself. It is as if my own feelings are happening to someone else. As it turns out, the same ETS surgery is used to treat psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and panic attacks, with significant results. I had psycho-surgery.

From 2002-2005, mostly prior to beginning 9/11 research, I researched the effects of sympathetcomy on humans. The culmination was the world’s most comprehensive treatise on the subject. The surgeons who inflict this barbaric nerve damage obviously must lie and conceal the known effects from their prospective patients, otherwise no one in their right mind would ever consent to it.

You may visit this site to learn more about the effects of sympathectomy, and visit this discussion forum to learn that I am not alone. Many people have been victimized by ETS surgery. ETS is the biggest surgical fraud since lobotomy.

I struggle every day in an effort to understand how ETS affects, for example, my judgment. Think about it. How might your judgment change if you were no longer able to experience fear? I was formerly a rather cautious driver. Now, I find myself weaving around other cars on the freeway, and not reacting in the least when another car appears ready to slam into my rear end, or cuts me off.

I believe this is quite relevant to my 9/11 research. Some of the alleged “researchers” are just government ops, seeking only to confuse. But I’m starting to think that the mostly sincere researchers are afraid of the truth. I don’t blame them. The only possible conclusion from 9/11 truth is to abolish the government. Atrocities like 9/11 are what governments do.

I have studied and fully support the so-called “Austrian” school of economics, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The upshot of this large literature is that government intervention into the economy is always harmful. We do not need it. As Robert LeFevre said, “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure”.

So there is a solid intellectual reason to not fear a “revolution” or a “Constitutional Crises” that would result from 9/11 truth becoming widely understood.

Still, my personal experience reveals that most alleged 9/11 researchers stop short of the truth. They won’t go “inside the opponents 20 yard line”, to borrow a sports metaphor from Morgan Reynolds. Besides demolition, most likely nuclear demolition, the full truth of 9/11 is that the mainstream media inserted fake airplanes into video and called it “news”.

I’ve proven this. I’m taking the ball into the end zone. Could it be that everyone else is simply afraid, while I am not?

9/11 Nukes

2009-01-10T18:20:00.001-08:00

An excellent new article by the Anonymous Physicist.

Why?

2009-01-07T23:41:00.000-08:00

Update - This article, originally published January 7, 2009, was hacked and altered. I don't know by whom, nor when exactly, but sometime before July 2011. This blog post is currently (December 10, 2011) referenced by the Wikipedia article about me, and the reference is to the hacked, false version. I've been earnestly attempting to correct the Wikipedia article, but User Natty10000 is adamant about keeping the false info in the article.

I have no backup or record of the original version of this blog post. Below is a December 2011 rewrite, using the hacked version as a starting point. After the first two paragraphs, almost all of the rest of it appears to be the same as it originally was.

-------

On January 5, 2009, while on an interview show with Jim Fetzer, I pretended to shoot myself with a gun. I filmed this event, and it is the climactic ending to The Great American Psy-Opera.

My fictional handgun death was a work of performance art. The societal function of artists is to challenge the perceptions, to stimulate thoughts and emotions within audience members that might not otherwise occur.

There are two important messages intended by my "pseudocide" performance art, one of which should be quite clear enough just listening to Fetzer's radio show, and which I will discuss below. The other, even more important message, will best be understood in the context of the video version, which is now included in my film "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera".

Performance Art Message #1

I Give Up Trying to Use Scientific Facts and Reasoning on You People

Any sincere 9/11 researcher will eventually be driven to abject frustration.

Why?

Because most of the so-called leaders of the 9/11 “truth” movement are not the least bit interested in truth. Steve Jones, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, Jim Fetzer, Bob Bowman, David Ray Griffin, Webster Tarpley, Rob Balsamo, Dylan Avery, Jim Hoffman, John Lear, Killtown, Webfairy, Nico Haupt . . . every one has staked out a peculiar position, surrounding the truth, protecting the truth, diverting all comers away from the truth with spin, double think, half-truth, bizarre fiction, and a mountain of irrelevancy.

This, of course, is essentially the same conclusion reached by Gerard Holmgren over a year ago. Fetzer and others have commented on Holmgren’s foul mouth. But I knew Gerard before he went ballistic. Holmgren was intelligent and brave, and laid the correct intellectual groundwork for no planes. He was articulate and polite. Gerard Holmgren was driven over the edge, and down into obscenity by continually confronting the political spin machine that calls itself the “truth movement”.

I wrote the book

I have authored the definitive scientific treatise on the video compositing used to create the 9/11 airplane videos. It has not, will not, and cannot be debunked. In fact, it is the solution to 9/11. I present a rigorous examination of my own discoveries, and those of other researchers. In all, I bring 22 data points to test the video composite hypothesis against the real plane hypothesis, and the video composite hypothesis prevails overwhelmingly.

This should have brought cheers from the entire 9/11 “truth” movement, at least from the so-called “no planers”, but no. Instead, Killtown banned me from posting at his “911movement” forum, a hangout for no planers.

Why?

Why would Killtown ban me, the one person who actually went and made the scientific case for no planes?

Smear Campaign Against Me and My Work

Worse, a vicious smear campaign was launched against me and my wife. “People” such as Killtown, Fred BS Registration, OzzybinOswald, Ewing2001 and others began posting page after page of pure character assassination, claiming I was a Mossad agent, that I had stolen another person’s identity, that I was not really a musician, that I claimed to be a directed energy weapons expert, etc. See for example this, this, this, this, this and this. I am banned, yet Killtown allowed others to post a litany of scandalous lies about me.

Why?

Nobody knows who these “people” are, so nothing can be done about it. This actually goes back to around September of 2007, when I began to politely correct some errors that had occurred in no-planes research, including some errors of my own. Fred BS Registration, Killtown and others were actively advancing the idea that a building at 19 Rector Street was missing from the Hezarkhani video. I found the “missing” building, right where it belonged, and posted proof on Killtown’s 911Movement.

The correct response from Killtown and co. should have been to thank me, and to admit a simple mistake, and move forward. Instead, my threads were deleted and/or moved.

Why?

Using deceptive editing, Fred next introduced a video claiming that two different shots were “the same, only rotated and cropped differently”. Simply lining the two shots up and alternating clearly shows that they are NOT the same.

Somebody called “ThoughtCrime” came up with a similar claim, I was able to easily show that these two shots were also different, one looking up, the other looking down.

Anonymous No-Planer Disinfo

These “errors” have actually turned out to be a full-fledged disinformation campaign, now led by the likes of Simon Shack, creator of September Clues. They are falsely claiming that the 9/11 videos are completely animated. We hear claims of moving bridges, missing buildings, moving buildings, missing backdrops, CGI people, and on and on. The total animation theory can be, and has been soundly debunked. Yet the purveyors persist.

Why?

They are pushing the total animation theory simply because it is false. It also leads naïve supporters of this theory to reject the demolition videos as fake, a disguised hidden agenda.

Stepping back a little further . . .

The "Suicide" of Gerard Holmgren

During April-July of 2007, I participated in an email group that included Gerard Holmgren, Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Webfairy, Coffinman, and others. Holmgren had already had a long interaction with Morgan Reynolds, and had corrected him on an important point in the no-planes physics argument. At the time, Reynolds was referring to the entire mass of the towers, which is actually irrelevant to the outcome of a collision with an airplane. It is the strength of the impacted structure which counts, as Holmgren correctly lectured Reynolds.

We already see a problem. Gerard Holmgren is a musician, and Morgan Reynolds is an economist. Fortunately, mechanical engineer Judy Wood was in the group. Coffinman and Holmgren very politely asked the kindly Dr. Wood to offer some engineering calculations to support the no-plane crash argument. It was then that Judy Wood first revealed herself to be something other than what she claimed. Even though she was indeed a “no-planer”, Judy Wood flat refused to offer any support within her field of expertise.

Why?

Dr. Wood said that she was afraid others would simply present different calculations that disagreed with hers. What? Of course they would, that’s the whole point of scientific debate. Using her credentials, she could demand to see the data allegedly used to produce the Purdue animations. I highly doubt there is ANY such data, and Judy Wood could and should have led the charge to expose this fact. But no.

I smelled a rat, but I kept silent. I was becoming quite close to Judy and Morgan I felt. They had linked to my work quite often in their published papers, including many links to my song, “Blown to Kingdom Come”. I made a conscious decision to “play nice” with Judy, Morgan and Fetzer.

In June of 2007, I published my analysis of the velocity of the airplane image in Chopper 5. The darn thing becomes less stable after you stabilize the video, so it has to be fake. This, plus my “playing nice”, got me invited to speak at the Madison Conference. At the conference, I was approached by a nice gentleman called Stephen Goodale to direct a documentary movie featuring Judy’s work. Goodale hired me, and we formed a film group consisting of us two, plus Judy Wood, Jerry Leaphart, Morgan Reynolds, and some guy named Russ Gerst, who Judy wanted involed, for reasons unknown to me.

By then, Morgan and Judy had filed their lawsuits under the representation of attorney Jerry Leaphart. Morgan Reynolds was suing alleging no plane crashes! Wow! What a great thing, except for one tiny problem. Morgan Reynolds was suing everybody except the guys who actually DID it, that being FOX, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC. Again, I smelled a rat. But I stayed cool with Reynolds, Wood and Fetzer.

Holmgren had already outed David Ray Griffin and Jim Fetzer as masters of double think. Planes both did and did not hit the WTC, A plane both did and did not hit the Pentagon, Flight 93 both was and was not shot down, etc. Reynolds too was a target of Holmgren’s justified wrath. Big Boeings somehow are subject to different physics than small Boeings, or airplanes from a different manufacturer. Holmgren had not-so-politely declined an invitation to speak at the Madison Conference.

Steven Jones Lied to Me

Just two days before the Madison Conference, Steven Jones published a hit piece on me written by Eric Salter. Though I immediately answered it on my website, and showed how he had cleverly avoided the scientific issue, I also contacted Steven Jones and requested the opportunity to publish a response to Salter in his “Journal of Nine Eleven Studies” (the JONES). Jones agreed, in writing, stating, “we would welcome your carefully researched response”. He asked if I had any objection to peer review, and I said no.

August, September and October 2007 were spent with me and Stephen Goodale flying around interviewing people about 9/11. We went to Toronto and spoke with Frank Greening who supports the official story and was trying to convince us that the hat truss “chewed up” the whole building and itself. We went to Indiana and spoke to the kindly Steven Jones, who blamed his lawyer for not including molten metal in his lawsuit. We went to Purdue and spoke with Mete Sozen who told Farmer Brown jokes and promised to release his data, and Voicu Popescu who pretended not to know what happened to the edited out portions of his airplane cartoon, and not to know how the floor assembly heals itself together after being ripped apart. Of course, I was expecting lies from the official guys like Sozen and Steve Jones.

It was also around this time I wrote a petition requesting broadcast-quality 9/11 videos from the networks. This is something that every reasonable person must support, regardless of their position on 9/11. Good science proceeds with the best data available. The only people who would not be in favor of my petition would be those not in favor of science. Morgan Reynolds, Mete Sozen, and Steven Jones all agreed to sign on as co-sponsors of the petition. I had an official story guy, a limited hangout plane-hugger, and a no-planer. I even have Steve Jones on video agreeing to support the action.

Then, strangely, the kindly Dr. Jones began making odd requests that I re-write his little mini-bio in the petition. I made one change for him, and republished it. Then he began insisting that I remove any mention of “BYU”. What? Jones is a former professor of physics from BYU.

In October 2007 we went to Jerry Leaphart’s house in Connecticut for 2 days, and talked to him, and Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Wood. It was interesting. Reynolds made sure to include a piece about how his wife had him tested for insanity, even though I didn’t ask. Judy had been bashing Steven Jones left and right in her emails with me, but refused to discuss Jones on camera. She basically just repeated her Madison presentation.

Judy Wood Lied to Me

In January of 2008, I certainly did NOT “stay cool” with Judy Wood. A few weeks prior, Judy had published her contention that the World Trade Center was blown up with a scaled-up version of the “Hutchison Effect”. The problem with that is that there is no such thing as any Hutchison Effect. Hutchison is a fraud who makes upside down videos and claims he has discovered a bizarre energy effect. Subsequently I have offered Hutchison $100,000 to reproduce his effect in my presence, and of course he can not do it.

But first I needed to determine whether or not Judy Wood actually believed in the legitimacy of the Hutchison Effect, so I made my own Hutchison-Effect videos by hanging a dollhouse upside down and holding things in place with a magnet, and letting them drop. Wheeeeee hoooooo. Then I sent an email claiming to have reproduced the effect. The silence from Judy, Morgan and co was absolutely deafening. Had Judy Wood actually believed Hutchison’s moonshine, she would have been overcome with curiosity. I had my answer.

Judy Wood has done a brilliant job of compiling the visual evidence of the nature and extent of the WTC devastation. She has correctly identified the reason why a more standard demolition was not used. But then she is associating this great work with utter nonsense, so that reasonable people will discard the whole thing. This is a pattern that I would observe in several others.

I was devastated. I had gone from being Judy’s biggest fan and writing a song about her, to smelling a rat, to becoming certainly convinced that she is a professional disinformation agent.

By then, January 2008, motions were being filed in the Wood and Reynolds lawsuits. With all the seriousness he could muster, Jerry Leaphart wrote and filed an affidavit in the name of John Hutchison about the Hutchison Effect. It was absolutely scandalous.

Morgan Reynolds Lost His Case On Purpose

Meanwhile, Reynolds appeared to be ignoring great evidence. While an economist arguing physics might not be particularly convincing, seeing as how the government can always hire a dozen engineers to counter anything, showing a judge a video with no plane in it would be completely undeniable.

Did you all hear me? Did you catch that?

There is a little video I like to call “Chopper 5”. It begins with a big wide shot that lasts over 5 seconds. There ought to be an airplane in that wide shot, and it is not there. This is evidence that any idiot can understand, even a Federal Judge.

There is also a little video called “Hezarkhani” or “Ghostplane”. The wing of the plane goes through the wall, but there is no damage. Not to the wall, and not to the plane. Later, there is a big gaping hole in the wall. But not when the wing of the plane goes through. Again, this is evidence that even a judge can understand.

Morgan Reynolds and former big oil attorney Jerry Leaphart refused to offer this evidence in their little lawsuit, but that’s OK, because they weren’t even suing the guys who did it! My frustration and anger were mounting. Daily. Wasn’t there anybody on the level?

Choosing the High Road

I announced to the film group that I was throwing out the script I had written and destroying what I had edited. My only moral obligation was to remain true to Stephen Goodale who had provided the money to fund the project. I asked him to allow me to re-do the film, according to what I know, and what I believe. I promised him that if he did not approve of the final result, I would repay him the money he put up. He agreed to that. I hate throwing away my work, but that’s what I did.

I decided to take a break from the film, and write a treatment proving video compositing of the 9/11 airplane videos. This could be considered the response to Eric Salter’s hit piece published in the Journal of Nine Eleven Studies, the one Steven Jones promised to publish. Except Jones broke his promise (surprise) and refused to publish it. Or, it could be the chapter in Jim Fetzer’s book “9/11 Controversies” that he promised. Except I highly doubt the kindly Dr. Fetzer will do so either.

A Very Modest Summary of Some of My Contributions

Before me, many people had commented about the fact that the airplane penetration videos look so fake. Webfairy termed the Hezarkhani video “Ghostplane”. But I was the first to create a specific proof of compositing in Hezarkhani. In one particular video field, the right wing of the plane has passed beyond the wall, yet no damage to the wall has occurred. A comparison to a later frame of video proves there is more than sufficient video resolution to see the hole, if it existed at that time.

I was the first to point out the lack of a wake vortex in the 9/11 fireballs.

Before me, many had commented on the nose-out in Chopper 5. But I was the first to actually demonstrate to the lay audience how compositing works, and how and why the nose out might occur in a live composite.

I was the first to measure the instability of the airplane motion.

I was the first to correctly explain the explosive flashes on the sides of the towers. They were real, and were absolutely needed in order to know where in time to place the airplane overlays.

I was the first to present a detailed explanation and demonstration of the techniques used in both the live and edited airplane videos.

I was the first to point out that the short edit in Naudet corresponds to the fade-to-black in Chopper 5.

I was the first to request, in fact demand, criticism and review of the no-planes evidence. Before my Hardfire appearance (1) and (2), there were simply NO official answers for the nose-out, the fade-to-black, the no wake vortex, and more. I was so frustrated at having those points ignored, I was willing to pay for myself and Steve Wright to fly to New York, with hotels.

I knew the Hardfire show situation was a setup. Steve Wright had been supplied with a list of everything I was going to say, while had no clue what his claims would be. But it was so important to actually get official answers down on the record, I did it, with my own money. I got video expert Steve Wright to admit that the resolution in Hezarkhani is good enough to see the hole, so he was forced to fabricate a ridiculous story about kerosene cutting steel.

All of this has taken a lot of my time, time not spent with my family. And yet, recent posters on Killtown’s forum have had the audacity to ask, “What has Ace contributed, other than a couple of YouTube videos?”

Why?

I have written the book. My treatise now stands for anyone to read. Except almost nobody cares. And I know why! People don’t care because they don’t want to know the truth. This was the real brilliance of 9/11, and the most profound thing I have learned in this ordeal. They thought up a deed so heinous that everyone would have to support it! The only, I repeat, the ONLY possible conclusion from 9/11 research is that government is illegitimate. Not THIS government, ALL government. We have the unalienable right to abolish our government, check the Declaration of Independence. But, people aren’t ready to hear that, and I doubt they ever will be. I am the one who doesn't belong here, and so I will leave.

Truth

I conclude people don’t value truth very highly. They value comfort, and beauty, but not truth. Not when it’s ugly or uncomfortable. So they hang out somewhere that is not the truth. When people encounter facts that conflict with deeply held beliefs, they often will choose to deny the facts. This is cognitive dissonance. Many members of the “truth” movement, especially the “leaders” are paid government operatives. Others begin sincere, but simply find the truth too nettlesome to endure once they touch it.

Rob Balsamo Lied to Me

Still, I pressed on, taking my treatise to the Pilots for 9/11 “Truth” forum, and one Rob Balsamo. There, I was pre-banned. I was forced to post in a subsection not viewable to the public. Nevertheless, I posted my entire book in a thread, and requested criticism and review.

Balsamo offered that he himself had experience with video, which I thought was great, but then he never discussed a single point from my work. Instead, he suggested that I contact some people he knows, pilots, who say they witnessed a plane crash at the WTC. I wholeheartedly agreed, but Balsamo was unable to produce any witnesses at all.

Meanwhile, some moderator called “DMole” was trying to get me to state what I thought was the ratio of faked 911 video to unfaked 911 video. I patiently explained why that was irrelevant. DMole then posted a dictionary definition of “ratio”, and claimed I was at odds with all of established mathematics. This was the best they could do at criticizing my treatise, and next thing I knew, I was banned (archived).

Why?

Dylan Avery Disallows the Mere Mention . . .

Speaking of banning, there’s Dylan Avery, creator of Loose Change. The original Loose Change was a good little movie. Avery knew there was something fishy about the airplane videos and the flashes, but fell for the “pod fires missile” meme, instead of understanding the planes are simply fake. Under “guidance” from “leaders” like Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin, the subsequent versions of LC stray farther and farther from observable truth, continue the plane hoax, divert attention away from the disintegration of the WTC, and onto matters such as the money trail.

Mere discussion of no plane theory is strictly forbidden at Loose Change Forum.

Why?

The number one piece of evidence proving no planes is the Chopper 5 video, with no plane in the wide shot, unstable motion, nose out, fade to black, etc. Dylan Avery is, in fact, the source of one (out of two) known copies of Chopper 5. This copy is of reduced size, and was frame blended, and had a fake airplane inserted into 3 frames of the zoom in. This airplane does not appear in the other known version. Nobody knows where Dylan Avery obtained his Chopper 5, and he has never replied to my repeated requests to please create a properly digitized copy so that we can analyze it better.

Why?

John Lear, Comic Genius

When you have essentially unlimited funding, as your government does, you can afford an endless stream of disifo agents. How about John Lear? Lear, son of LearJet founder Bill Lear, is an accomplished pilot, and an expert in aeronautics. He correctly explains that it is impossible for a 767 airplane to travel 550 mph at low altitude. This is far past its VMO (velocity maximum operating), the engines would act as brakes, the frame and wings would oscillate, and the craft would become uncontrollable and likely break apart.

Great stuff from the kindly Mr. Lear, who also will tell you with a straight face that there are large civilizations of people on the moon, and Venus, and Jupiter (I’m not making this up). He also contributes to 9/11 disinfo by claiming the planes were faked with some kind of hologram, when in fact it is impossible to project any sort of image into thin air. All projected images require something to reflect light into people’s eyes or into a camera. So yet again, we have another very intelligent man associating some piece of the truth with patent nonsense.

Why?

Truth II

I thought this was the truth movement. And that’s where I was wrong. I thought people were actually looking for truth. They aren’t. Holmgren was exactly right. And in a way, he committed suicide also. You should read some of Holmgren’s emails from late in his career. Profane and disgusting doesn’t even begin to describe them. Holmgren now will have nothing to do with anyone in the “truth” movement, including me. That may be because I stayed on the sidelines while he was duking it out with Reynolds, and Fetzer, and Wood. I don’t know, but whatever the reason, I don’t blame him.

Genghis I’m on the fence about. His 9/11 Taboo is a pretty nice piece of work, and he has certainly been out there yelling at Killtown and Dylan Avery, rightly so. He has recently done some great little videos debunking the total animation garbage.

But Genghis also supports the idea of a missile attack. This can’t be true. Genghis is now a great video editor in his own right, thus well-equipped to understand that it is currently impossible to reliably motion-track an incoming missile in real time. I’ve explained how this proves no flying object.

Genghis also supports the idea of thin air holograms. These are not possible, even in theory.

Forgive me if you are an honest and sincere 9/11 truther and I have neglected you. My film, 9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera, will be finished without me. It’s the story of 9/11, what happened, how we know what happened, and all the people who are working so hard to keep you from believing what happened. It’s still going to take a while, it’s a very large piece. And it’s going to be the truth, like it or not. No doubt I and my movie will be slimed all across cyberspace. And I will laugh.

So yes, I am planning on ending my life while speaking on Jim Fetzer's radio show in a few hours. It is my little way of saying to hell with you, all of you. And congratulations, all of you. 9/11 was, and is, dead brilliant. Of all the 9/11 scoundrels, no one deserves it more than Jim Fetzer. Fetzer has been playing me, and playing every one the whole way.

I Can No Longer Conceal My Views on Jim Fetzer

Let’s consider two examples of Fetzer’s method. I busted John Hutchison on Fetzer’s show back a year ago in January 2008. The next day, he had on Judy Wood and Hutchison. Fetzer gave Hutchison the 3rd degree about his (lack of ) academic credentials, but failed to ask the obvious question: John, what is your apparatus?

Here we have a guy who claims to have discovered an energy effect in his bedroom with a pile of surplus army electronics, and we have a Ph.D. scientist radio host, supposedly skeptical of this claim, who doesn’t think to ask him how the hell he even did it? Nonsense. Fetzer was pretending to be mean, but actually playing softball. Later Judy would “complain” about the poor treatment.

Now please have a look at this Op-Ed piece by Jim Fetzer. After interviewing me at least 10 times on his show, and having me explain the evidence over and over to him, he lists the “top 5” reasons to believe in 9/11 video fakery. While he includes Simon Shack’s nonsensical “black gash was penciled in”, Fetzer ignores the very straightforward, powerful evidence – No plane in the wide shot, Nose out, Magically Healing Columns, No Wake Vortex, etc.

There is not a question in my mind, not even a tiny lingering shred of doubt, that Jim Fetzer is deliberately screwing up the evidence, just like the others. It pains me greatly to say it. Jim Fetzer has been very nice to me, and given me a lot of time on his show. He has shown compassion and understanding toward me in private conversations. I'm sorry Jim, I still think you're screwing it up, and I can't hold it in any longer.

People have warned me that my work of performance art might my credibility. That’s impossible, my credibility was already assassinated by Killtown and his crew. Nice job. A poster on his 911 movement forum a few days ago was commenting about my admission that 9/11 has taken me away from my family. He dismissed me as having not done much except for a couple of youTube Videos. And nobody cared to correct him.

Why?

The Societal Function of Art

My art is designed to get you to think about truth, what it means, and to force most of you to admit (at least to yourself) that you don’t actually value it much, if at all. You don’t. And that’s OK, this should keep you comfy. If you are one of those very rare people who value the truth, beware. Sooner or later, you will be denied. The forces protecting the truth are very well funded, and they don’t want you around.

The fact is, the mainstream news media inserted fake airplane images into video of the exploding twin towers. When someone like me comes along and shows you the truth, and proves it, it makes you very uneasy. You require doubt about 9/11 to maintain your comfort zone.

No hardworking honest person likes to learn that their service is not valued. My service was truth, I gave it to you, and you don’t value it. I accept that. I needed to find a way to express how deeply that hurts me, and I decided to make the ultimate sacrifice. At the same time, I needed to find a way to give back the comfort that I took away from you by presenting the truth. If you can dismiss me as a crazy person, maybe, just maybe, you can ignore the truth I have proven.

That is message #1.

Performance Art Message # 2

Message #2 is even more important than #1. Please watch Psy-Opera all the way through.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

January 7, 2009

Freedom Underground with Jim Fetzer, #1

2008-12-16T08:55:00.000-08:00

1. What actually happened on 9/11?

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

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

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

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

7. What is a government?

8. What is a monopoly?

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

10. What is money?

World's Shortest Political Quiz

2008-12-03T18:43:00.000-08:00

Theory of Park Foreman

2008-12-01T02:01:00.000-08:00

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

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

Anthony Lawson's Forgery

2008-11-25T10:52:00.000-08:00

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

Link to Lawson's "Puffballs Busted"

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

Link to my "Lawson the Forger"

The $100,000 Fred BS Video Compositing Challenge

2008-11-07T22:33:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

-Fred BS Registration

source

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

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

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

Simon Shack Pushing Video Fakery Falsehoods

2008-11-04T07:41:00.000-08:00

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

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

Simon Says:

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

or

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

My reasoning for ruling out hypothesis (1) is :

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

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

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

Color Schemes

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

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

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

Cartoon-like Textures

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

Mask Linings

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

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

Choppers Are Positioned

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

Other Choppers

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

Swaying Towers

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

Helicopter Skids Rotate, but Camera Remains Still

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

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

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

Perspective Problems / Disappearing Backgrounds

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

1. They are giving critics ammunition to make no-planers look stupid.

2. They are trying to destroy the credibility of the 9/11 tower videos, which in fact show them being disintegrated by nuclear weapons.

John Hutchison Spews Lies and Threatens Murder

2008-11-04T06:30:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

Then Hutchison comes right out and threatens murder:

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

and

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

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

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

The $100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

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

Background

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

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

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

Challenge

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

Time: _____________ AM/PM

Date: ______________________ 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judgment

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

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

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

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

Payment

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

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

Further Considerations

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

Witnesses

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

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

Ownership of audio/video

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

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

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

Alexander “Ace” Baker ________________________________ date _______________

John Hutchison ______________________________________ date________________

The Effect of Zoom and Viewing Angle

2008-10-29T20:56:00.000-07:00

2008-10-29T13:46:00.000-07:00

Notes for Dynamic Duo - October 29 2008.

1. So what?

2. Steven Jones "Barium Riddle" solved.

Mushroom Cloud

3. LInk to Nuclear Demolition Site.

Link to Nuclear Demolition Paper - William Tahil.

4. September Clues 9

5. Why Me?

6. Paul is Dead?

Hoaxing the Hoaxers

2008-10-25T10:45:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL.

The Real Deal on Molten Metal

2008-10-20T13:26:00.000-07:00

Understanding the limitations of video compositing helps solve another riddle

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

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

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

The workers are actually gathered around a searchlight.

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

And then there is this image, from NIST:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conversation with Truth Sleuth

2008-10-19T10:34:00.000-07:00

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

MP3 file is here.

"Fullflav" Attempts a Hit Piece

2008-10-17T10:25:00.000-07:00

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

Here's his pathetic attempt, with my comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lie. I have "manufactured" no evidence.

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

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

Dave "Strawman" Rogers

2008-10-15T08:11:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strwaman, already answered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answered.

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

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

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

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

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

Answered.

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

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

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

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

It's a classic piece of conspiracist logic. The planners had to be at the same time devilishly clever enough to understand that hundreds of thousands of people would honestly believe they'd seen a real plane hit WTC2 because they were told on TV that they must have seen it, technically able enough to perform a feat of real-time video compositing far beyond anything that had ever even been attempted before, and yet stupid enough to leave the split-second timing required to Joe Schmoe down in the video suite, who forgot to press the big red button at exactly the right moment.

No, I'm quite sure they left the timing to Joe Schmoe in the helicopter, and that would be Kai Simonsen on Chopper 5.

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

Dave

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

What Rule of Law?

2008-10-10T18:26:00.000-07:00

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

Rule of Law means that no one is above the law. It means a body of law that has two properties:

1. The law applies equally to everyone
2. The law constrains the rulers, as well as the ruled.

John Adams, in drafting the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, envisioned “ . . .a government of laws, not of men”. Can a government actually embody Rule of Law? Consider the definition of a government:

Government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation.

19th century economist John C. Calhoun was the first to point out a fundamental fact about taxation: Imposing any sort of tax automatically creates two distinct classes of citizens – net tax payers, and net tax consumers. No matter what sort of tax it is – income tax, sales tax, property tax, death tax, or any other – there will be one group of people who, on balance, pay the tax, and another group who, on balance, consume the benefit of the tax.

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

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

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

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

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in his lecture “Prospects for a 2nd American Revolution”, warns:

“Rather than a protector and a judge, a monopolist will increasingly become a protection racketeer, a destroyer and invader of the people and property he was supposed to protect, as well as a war-monger and an imperialist".

-Hans-Hermann Hoppe

What about “Checks and Balances”? Only a competitive free market can provide real checks and balances. Customers reward good service and punish bad with their purchasing decisions. What mechanism exists to check and balance the government monopoly? None that I can see.

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

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

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

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

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

And so, for centuries, we have seen the predictable results play out:

Government passes laws against theft, then exempts itself and calls it “taxation”.
Government passes laws against mass murder, then exempts itself and calls it “foreign policy”.
Government passes laws against counterfeiting, then exempts itself and calls it “monetary policy”.
Government passes laws against slavery, then exempts itself and calls it “conscription”.
Government passes laws against eavesdropping, then exempts itself and calls it “counter-terrorism”.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theater of the Absurd

2008-10-08T21:18:00.000-07:00

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

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

What the hell am I supposed to do with this?

Mushroom Cloud

2008-10-06T23:55:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Blackouts

2008-09-27T11:08:00.000-07:00

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

What Can I Do?

2008-09-26T07:23:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

1. Don't vote.

2. Don't fight.

3. Don't watch the news.

Don't vote.

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

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

Don't fight.

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

Don't watch the news.

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

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

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

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

9/11 Grand Unified Theory

2008-09-25T20:31:00.000-07:00

Pre 9/11

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

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

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

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

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

Explosives are buried in the abandoned strip mine outside Shanksville.

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

FEMA agents arrive in lower Manhattan day before.

9/11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talking point: "Collapse".

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

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

All 4 flights existed and took off as advertised.

Ammunition for Propaganda

2008-09-13T18:12:00.000-07:00

Ammunition for Propaganda

A critical review of "9/11 Justice"

by Ace Baker

September 12, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I digress.

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

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

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

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

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

"Pull it" was NO accident.

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

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

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

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

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

John Hutchison for President

2008-09-08T11:46:00.000-07:00

Model of Disinformation

2008-08-26T08:35:00.000-07:00

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

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

A. Acceptance of a false narrative

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

B. Rejection of a true narrative

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

$100,000 WNYW Chopper 5 Challenge

2008-08-19T00:48:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

3. The digital copies will be interlaced.

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

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

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

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

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

9. The videos are licensed to me in perpetuity.

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

Sincerely,

Alexander "Ace" Baker

Isaura Nunez, WNYW

Kai Simonsen, WNYW

Steven Jones

Steve Wright

Ron Wieck

Gary Popkin

Jim Fetzer

Judy Wood

Morgan Reynolds

Jerry Leaphart

Andrew Johnson

John Hutchison

Killtown

$100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

2008-08-17T23:05:00.000-07:00

August 17, 2008

To John Hutchison and Judy Wood:

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

1. I will travel at my own expense to Hutchison's laboratory (shown above) in the Vancouver area.

2. I will bring 3 video cameras with tripods.

3. Hutchison will describe and point out his apparatus components on video. I will have unrestricted access to the laboratory area, being allowed to video anything which piques my curiosity.

4. Hutchison will then produce the levitation of a steel wrench, as depicted in at least one of his previous videos. The wrench must fly upwards off of the table.

5. During the levitation demonstration, I will video tape continuously on all 3 cameras. One camera will be aimed at Hutchison as he operates any controls, one camera will be aimed at the wrench, and the last camera I will hand-hold, aiming at anything I choose.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Alexander "Ace" Baker

Judy Wood

John Hutchison

Jerry Leaphart

Morgan Reynolds

Jim Fetzer

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

The $100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

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

Background

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

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

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

Challenge

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

Time: _____________ AM/PM

Date: ______________________ 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge

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

Payment

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

Further Considerations

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

Witnesses

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

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

Ownership of audio/video

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

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

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

Alexander “Ace” Baker ________________________________ date _______________

John Hutchison ______________________________________ date________________

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

2008-07-25T07:19:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

I am here

2008-07-16T03:16:00.001-07:00

Video Fakery AND Real Planes?? Owning Jones.

2008-06-26T10:40:00.000-07:00

The following dialog between Steven Jones and me took place June 23-24 2008, and I await any further comment Dr. Jones may have. This came right after I submitted a 25 page paper on video compositing and no planes to the Journal of Nine Eleven Studies for review.

Dr. Jones is now evidently floating the idea that videos were faked AND there were real plane crashes. This is ridiculous on its face, and an understanding of the technology shows it to be impossible.

Ace,

1. If two videos were "faked", does that necessarily mean that ALL videos of a plane hitting the So Tower were faked, including a number of amateur videos? could not faking the two videos be part of the Machiavellian plan (as someone pointed out, Mike I think) rather than "proof" of "no planes"? Please clarify your logic here.

-Steven Jones

You must make finer distinctions than merely saying "fake" video. Some kinds of video fakery are possible to do in real time, some are only possible with editing time, some are extremely difficult even with editing time, and some are strictly impossible.

We see impossible physics in CNN Ghostplane. We see the wing through the wall, yet no damage to the wall. Later, there was damage to the wall. This is perfectly consistent with a simple type of compositing. That's why it looks so fake.

However, if this was a real plane crash, which actually broke the columns, then it means they had to copy and paste the wall back together so that it appears unbroken during the wing passage. This is next-to-impossible to do without detection. You would need to copy the undamaged wall information from somewhere. Where? Earlier frames? That would work, but we could run a difference matte, and could easily prove that pixels were copied from one frame to another.

If we accept that Chopper 5 was shown live, the "real planes + fakery" hypothesis is out. For example, there's no plane in the wide shot. This is perfectly consistent with the compositing hypothesis, because they did not intend to show that wide shot, only the zoom ed in shot. It is impossible to erase a flying plane out of the sky, in real time, on a shot that zooms and pans. It simply cannot be done with existing technology. This would require perfect motion tracking on the buildings, and the incoming airplane. Not possible.

Suppose I grant that you are correct about the two videos you challenge, does that necessarily mean that ALL videos of a plane hitting the So Tower were erroneous, including a number of amateur videos? could not these two videos be part of the Machiavellian plan (as someone pointed out, Mike I think) rather than "proof" of "no planes"? Please clarify your logic here.

-Steven Jones

First, it is more than 2 videos I challenge. Please read the paper I sent you for review. It is a consideration of the totality of the video record, and show that only the compositing hypothesis satisfies that data. I outline a fairly specific narrative involving 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation videos.

But yes, proving the nature of the video compositing present in Ghostplane, and/or Chopper 5 necessarily rules out the legitimacy of the other videos. I have explained this perfectly clearly. Some things are possible with editing, some things are not. Inserting an airplane and making it disappear through the wall is quite doable. Taking a real plane crash, and making it look like a bad special effect composite, is not possible. Therefore, there was no real plane crash. QED.

Consider Chopper 5 and its missing airplane in the wide shot. If we assume this footage was shown live, we can rule out a real airplane. A real airplane would have been present in the beginning sequence, including during zooms. Real time erasing an airplane from a zooming shot, and doing so undetectably, is impossible.

Therefore there was no real plane. QED.

The motion of the airplane in Chopper 5 becomes less stable upon stabilizing the footage. This is impossible with a real airplane. Therefore the airplane image is a composite. It is impossible to motion track reliably in real time, therefore the airplane image in Chopper 5 could not have been overlaid on top of a real plane in real time. Therefore the airplane image must not be covering up a real plane. Therefore no real plane was present. QED.

The Pinocchio's Nose event cannot be a real event, as explained in great detail in my paper. Therefore real time compositing was taking place. Real time compositing cannot cover up a real airplane. Therefore there was no real plane. QED.

I could go on, but it would run 25 pages, and it would be the paper I already sent you.

Since there was no real plane, all videos depicting a plane are composites. QED.

Perhaps you should clarify your hypothesis, Dr. Jones. You're suggesting there was a real plane crash, and that certain videos were faked, to serve as a honey pot for false research. What specifically do you argue was added/deleted/modified on which videos? Be specific. Only then could I address your claims in any more detail.

1b. In particular, How do you account for multiple, independent amateur videos of a jet hitting the So. Tower?

-Steven Jones

Pretty easy actually, once you understand the technology. A single flight path is modeled in a program such as Lightwave 3D. Once modeled, an airplane layer can be rendered from any virtual camera position. Camera motion is matched with a form of motion tracking called "match motion". Motion blur, focus, shadows, etc. are all standard plug-ins.

Amateurs? Prove it. Spooks were seizing cameras left and right. There was no flying object, therefore actual amateur footage of no-plane is unlikely, for why does someone shoot video of nothing? If video surfaced showing no plane, the perps would simply accuse that person of removing the plane, they would seize the footage, quickly and easily composite a plane into it, and claim that was the original. A computer with files would be planted as evidence, the photographer would be jailed as a terrorist, and that would be the end of it.

I don't care if there are 42 or 1042 of them. Any number of airplane videos can be composited.

2. Did the Boeing plane which hit the Empire State Building ENTER into that building? Did it leave a hole showing where the wings hit? Relevant experimental data.
-Steven Jones

It is instructive to consider the B-25 accident. The Empire State building has a non-structural facade. No steel columns were severed. Pieces fell to the street. Video was not available in those days. If video was available of the B-25, I'm sure that whatever damage was done appeared to occur as the airplane was interacting with the building material. This is in sharp contradistinction to CNN Ghostplane.

2. It appears that we agree that a B-25 hit and ENTERED the Empire State Building, with pieces exiting the building. These data are consistent with observations of the planes hitting the Towers. Building on these data, can you provide other experimental evidences that a B-767 at high speed would NOT enter a WTC Tower?

-Steven Jones

As far as I knew, pieces of the B-25 fell down to the street on the impact side. Entering the building is a bit misleading, because of the structural differences between the buildings. The twin towers had structural box columns right at the perimeter.

I think the best data we have on jets hitting strong things is Sandia. Score was Wall 100, Jet 0. I think the strength of the Sandia wall was comparable to the strength of a floor assembly, edge on. Those floors had to transfer lateral loading to the core.

3. How do you account for NIST's detailed analysis of the oscillatory motion including damping of the So. Tower following hit? How does one get the Tower to oscillate like that in the absence of a plane-hit?

-Steven Jones

One gets the Tower to oscillate like that in the absence of a plane-hit by setting off explosive charges. Those charges are asymmetrical on the tower, they exert force, the building is flexible. Very flexible. It was known to sway in the wind all the time. Newton. equal and opposite. Force. As in pushing. We've been through this. At length. It's not so different from rocket thrust. Explosion goes one way, pushes stuff the other way.

3. How do you account for NIST's detailed analysis of the oscillatory motion including damping of the So. Tower following hit? How does one get the Tower to oscillate like that in the absence of a plane-hit? Note that Momentum must be conserved in ANY collision. A Boeing 767-200 traveling at high speed has enormous momentum, which can be calculated using P = MV. Similarly, explosives blowing OUT the side of the building would have some momentum -- but have you calculated how much? In other words, how much explosives (by weight) does one need to use, and at what velocity of the "exhaust" gases, to equal the enormous momentum of a high-speed B-767?

-Steven Jones

Who said it has to equal the momentum of a Boeing 767? What plane? Let's begin by asking what NIST used for input data to their Moire. What was actually measured, and could I please see that?

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda

2008-06-18T21:57:00.000-07:00

I should be working on the movie. I'll get it done, and it will be all it needs to be. But I'm messed up.

I didn't handle the Hardfire show well. There was no way I could have, under the circumstances. Steve Wright's pre-condition for doing the show was that he be supplied with a list of every claim I would make, and every video I would show, a week in advance. Originally, months before the show, I responded by saying that I needed the same consideration. I wanted to see everything Wright would present. I suggested that I give him my material 2 weeks in advance, and he present his to me one week in advance.

In response to that suggestion, Wright declined. He said he did not intend to present any new material. That turned out to be a lie, only the first of many. A week before the show, I gave Steve Wright this Word document, with links to many video files.

So the situation preceding the Hardfire show was that Wright new everything I would say, and I didn't have a clue what he would say. I knew this. I agreed to go forward anyway, because I wanted answers. At that time, there simply was no official story explaining away the problems in the 9/11 videos. I felt it was important to get an expert on the record answering these charges.

But what I should have done was this - I should have explained to the camera what I just explained in writing. I should have said that I've had no chance to research whatever claims Wright was going to make. I should have said that all claims would be addressed on my blog, and given the address.

Unfortunately, I could not respond on the show the way I would have liked, because I had promised to only present the videos I sent to Wright.

For example, on "no plane in the wide shot", I could have shown my control case. I shot video from 6 1/2 miles, into a bright sky, zoom out. Planes are visible.

For example, on "debris came out of the tower, and looked like a nose", I could have shown Gamma Press, and Fairbanks, which also look like a nose cone. Then, I could have shown Naudet, which clearly shows a dust creation. I could have mentioned that the edit in Naudet is exactly where the fade to black is in Chopper 5.

But, I held up to my end of the deal. It will be OK in the long run. Rest assured this will all be covered in my movie. But very few people will give a rat's ass anyway. So what? Who cares?

Wright lied his ass off, over and over. He says interlaced footage proves no compositing. He says the fade to black is Auto Gain Control. He says objects disappear at 8 pixels in size. He says planes must only go at a constant speed in a composite. He says a kerosene explosion can break steel.

Steve Wright, you are a filthy liar. You conspire to cover up mass murder, and I hate you. You lied to me, you lied to the world, and I can prove it.

Rasga's Over-Under Puffball

2008-06-15T19:27:00.000-07:00

click image for larger version

Rasga Saias has produced a study claiming a contradiction in placement of the fake "puffball" seen in the 9/11 airplane composite videos. He says the puffball appears below the left wing in CNN Ghostplane, but above the left wing in Fairbanks. I repeat his study, and I agree.

Live Compositing Challenge to Steve Wright

2008-06-15T11:44:00.000-07:00

I will shoot 3 sequences of high resolution progressive footage:

1. An airplane flying across the sky and disappearing behind the edge of a building.
2. The same building as in #1 with no airplane.
3. An airplane flying across the sky all by itself.

I'll remove the background from #3, leaving an airplane flying against a transparency, and color correct it as I see fit.

I will arrange time at a video editing room with an AVID symphony or similar. I'll arrive with the 3 video files. My goal will be to, in real-time, using real-time luma key, insert the airplane in #3 into video #2, and make it appear to fly across and disappear behind the edge of the building. We'll convert the composited output to NTSC, and also convert video #1 to NTSC.

I'll end up with two NTSC interlaced videos, both showing an airplane crossing the sky and disappearing behind a building edge. The test will be to see if Steve Wright can identify which video is the composite, and to point out any:

1. Mismatched interlace scan lines.
2. Color disagreement.
3. Harsh edges.
4. Differences in video noise between airplanes and building.

An Exchange with Steve Wright

2008-06-14T23:37:00.000-07:00

As one hilarious note, Wright claims that because Chopper 5 is in an interlaced video format, it cannot be a composite. By this reasoning, Jurassic Park DVD shows real live dinosaurs.

Again, Baker has garbled the facts and tries to mislead the lay audience. Jurassic Park was composited at feature film resolution, shot out to film, then the finished film transfered to interlaced video, like all movies. The compositing was not done in interlaced video, and I am sure that Wright's friends at ILM will be enraged to hear Baker claim that it was. This example reveals Baker's persistent ignorance of the material he tries to use as "evidence".

-Steve Wright

I never said movies were composited interlaced, exactly the opposite. Wright makes my point for me. In my paper, I state that the live composites are done progressive, then converted to interlaced. Of course Jurassic Park was composited in high resolution. That's MY point. It is Steve Wright who observes that Chopper 5 was given to him in an interlaced format, and then dishonestly concludes that the compositing must have been done in that format. I'm going to keep Wright's recorded words unchanged as he speaks of Chopper 5's interlacing, and substitute interlaced Jurassic Park footage. The audience will observe compositing expert Steve Wright "proving" the dinosaurs are real, the exact same way he "proved" the plane is real. And we will laugh hard. Or cry.

"Live compositing not possible" is another hilarious lie by Steve Wright. What was required is real-time luma key.

Nobody said live compositing is not possible. The weatherman does it every night on the news. What Wright correctly stated was that lumakeying a pre-recorded jet video clip over a live video feed from a wobbling chopper camera AND motion-tracking it into position AND color correcting it AND matching the video noise AND matching the video interlaced lines - is impossible in real-time. Baker conveniently ignores this complete list of requirements in his video fakery rants.

-Steve Wright

I ignore nothing, I've written the paper. Read it before you try the strawman argument.

Theory of Live 9/11 Video Composites

1. The Chopper is not "wobbling". The camera is gyroscopically stabilized. It presents a very stable shot. I still maintain that it was slightly unstable, measurably. Wright demonstrated that the airplane motion is pretty stable on the stabilized version of the video. What he didn't do, which I have done, is show that the airplane motion on the raw, unstabilized version of Chopper 5 is just as stable, and I say even more so. It most CERTAINLY is not any less stable.

2. No Motion Tracking is required, because the camera is gyroscopically stabilized.

3. Color correction of the airplane image is done ahead of time, against test shots, as I have demonstrated. It's a piece of cake, the planes are silhouettes.

4. Video noise is a non-issue. The composites are done at a high resolution, THEN converted to NTSC. I suspect they were done at 59.94 frames per second, progressive.

5. "Matching interlace scan lines" is a complete red herring, and Wright knows it. The composite is done in progressive format, then the entire thing is converted to NTSC interlaced. There is no possible way the scan lines could not match.

I think my challenge is a good way to test all this. No? Scientific method. Let's test it. While we're at it, let's test Wright's claim that Auto gain Control can make a camera go to black. No video camera I've tested will do this. I say he made that up. Where's your evidence for that whopper, Mr. Wright?

There is a huge fight brewing between Steve Wright and the executives at Avid.

False controversy. There is no fight brewing between Steve Wright and the executives at Avid. The Avid executives have never even raised the topic of Baker with Wright. They, like Wright, simply have better things to do with their time than feed Baker's psychosis by responding to his inane allegations and garbled thinking.

-Steve Wright

Avid makes live compositing systems. Steve Wright is calling them liars. I'm going to push it until someone cries uncle. And it's going to be Mr. Wright (aka Mr. Wrong).

Wright does not call his friends at Avid liars. Wright calls Baker a bumbling psychotic that cannot get the facts straight who continues to try to fool the lay audience with his phony "analysis". Baker simply needs to invent a controversy that does not exist in a pathetic attempt to get more attention for himself. Avid will wisely ignore Baker.

-Steve Wright

I'm glad Wright is admitting that live compositing is possible. Wright is, however, in effect, calling AVID liars. AVID claims live compositing, of exactly the type required to do a 9/11 live shot. Wright says it is impossible. The only way to really settle it is a live demonstration. Wright and I both know how to do it. The only part of the equation I can't duplicate is a gyroscopically stabilized camera mount. We won't need it, because Wright's own methods re-applied demonstrate the stability of the camera shot. (His method also demonstrates that the airplane image in Chopper 5 did not slow down on entry, I guess Steve didn't get the memo on that point. Pssssst, Steve, you're supposed to say it slowed down by 18%).

As we saw on "Hardfire", Baker actually believes that if you find a few people that did not see planes crash into towers, that proves planes didn't. In fact, that proves nothing. The truth is, if you found 1000 people that did NOT see it, but ONE that really did, then that one observer PROVES planes hit the towers. By Baker's logic, if we can find a few people that did not see him born, then he does not exist. We could only wish.

-Steve Wright

I never said that. The no-plane witnesses are interesting, but not proof in and of themselves. It is the fake videos, and the impossible physics, and the ever-changing story on the nose-out that proves no planes.

The final nail in Baker's silly coffin is Wright's conundrum, which goes like this: If there exists even one authentic news video, camcorder video, photograph, or eye witness to the planes hitting the towers, then the planes are proven. However, to prove no planes, then every single news video, camcorder video, photograph, and eye witness must be fake. To fake these hundreds of different sources plus keep the perpetrators of those fakes silent all these years is absurd on the face of it. Just like Ace Baker.

-Steve Wright

That's your final argument? That's a big IF. One could use the same "logic" to prove bigfoot. If just ONE of those bigfoot videos is authentic, or ONE of those photos is authentic, or ONE of the eyewitnesses is correct, then it PROVES bigfoot. There are lots of videos and photos and witnesses for bigfoot.

Only a true disinfo artist could try to claim that SOME fake videos are insufficient proof of no-planes. Even one provably fake video proves no-planes. CNN ghostplane is a freaking fake. It's physically impossible. No planes.

Guess what? There's no bigfoot. The "evidence" is fake, the witnesses are lying or mistaken. And there were no plane crashes on 9/11. Remember when Wright went on Hardfire and claimed that kerosene breaks steel? That's Baker's conundrum. I sent it to you Ron Wieck, and asked you to send it to Mackey. Copy Wright, it will be funny as hell.

Dynamic Duo - 6.12.08

2008-06-12T13:52:00.000-07:00

Theory of Live 9/11 Video Composites

Chopper 5 and the Missing Shadow

No Flying Object

Detonation Flashes as Sync Pops

No Flying Object

2008-06-11T14:53:00.000-07:00

Why video fakery proves no flying objects, and why they wouldn’t use flying objects anyway

9/11 video fakery has been proven. The videos showing a plane look fake because they are fake. So cheesy are they, that composi-traitors like Evan Fairbanks felt compelled to appear on television and declare that a commercial airliner “disappeared like a bad special effect”. News perp Peter Jennings memed, “It’s like a graphic artist, isn’t it?” Yes, indeed.

Live Video Compositing Rules Out Flying Objects

To be specific, the 9/11 airplane videos are video composites. Each has had a flying airplane image inserted into what is otherwise legitimate footage. Most of these approximately 30 videos came after the fact, but 2 of them were shown live. Focusing on the live airplane videos, and understanding compositing technology, we can rule out a number of scenarios which have been proposed to explain the damage that occurred to the twin towers.

In fact, accepting video fakery on the live shots, we can rule out any flying object as having caused the airplane-shaped holes. Inserting an airplane image into a live shot is doable, under certain very specific circumstances, as I explain in the Theory of Live 9/11 Composites. If there is really an empty sky, an airplane image can be made to appear to fly right across. If there is high contrast between a nice, straight, dark tower, and a bright sky, the airplane can be made to disappear behind the edge.

However, covering up and/or erasing a real flying object on video is a different matter altogether, whether the object is a missile, a UAV, a Global Hawk, an A-3 Skywarrior, or anything else. A flying object could literally be covered up with an overlaid airplane image, provided the airplane is bigger, and provided the motion can be matched.

Matching the motion of a video object in real time involves real-time motion tracking. Motion tracking software was in its infancy in 2001, and even today, in 2008, an incoming small flying object could not be reliably tracked in real-time.

Motion tracking works by identifying by a pattern of pixels on a particular frame. The software then looks for a similar pattern on each subsequent frame, and keeps track of the change in position. The identifying pattern must be selected first, on a frozen frame. Only then can the software attempt to track. For an incoming object like a missile, there is simply no time to select what is being tracked.

Even if a selection could somehow be made, motion tracking is notoriously finicky. Any small error in tracking would give the overlaid airplane image an unnatural motion. With current technology, there is no possible way to reliably track a flying object live in real-time.

So the perpe-traitors might have considered attacking the twin towers with a missile and replacing it on video with images of a 767. For non-live video, this is doable. But factoring in the necessity of showing the television audience live footage of an airplane, this entire scenario can be ruled out as technically impossible.

They Wouldn't Use Missiles Anyway

In fact, even ignoring the problems with live motion tracking, I think we can rule out flying objects with logic. The same reasoning that allowed Gerard Holmgren to rule out the use of real planes in his 2006 article, may be extended to rule out the use of all flying objects.

Accepting the general notion of 9/11 as an inside job, and that the perpe-traitors wanted to sell a story about suicidal Musilm hijackers using airplanes to cause catastrophic damage to the twin towers, Holmgren methodically goes through options. There are simply too many problems with using real airplanes.

Real pilots could never be trusted to actually commit suicide, so any real-plane scenario must involve remote control guidance. If the real flights AA11 and UA175 were electronically hijacked, the pilots and flight attendants would be on the radio, and the air-phones, screaming “Help! We’ve been electronically hijacked!”. Even if those systems could be sabotaged, at low altitude, personal cell phones would work.

Perhaps the real passenger flights could be landed somewhere, and switched with military 767s, flown by remote guidance. Can a 767 really be reliably targeted with accuracy down to 1 foot? I doubt it, and that is what is needed in this situation. If the “collapse” begins obviously below where the plane hit, how would that be explained away?

Worse, what if the plane partially misses the tower? If even a wing tip were to break off and land on the street somewhere, it could be found and photographed by the wrong person. A passenger aircraft has over 1 million serial number parts. If the serial number on that military plane doesn’t match the records for UA175, how is that explained away?

As difficult as those problems are to solve, the fundamental unsolvable problem with real airplanes is physics. The people must believe that there is extensive damage to the core structure of each tower. This requires what Killtown calls “Guaranteed Penetration”, an apt phrase. And to carry off the “collapse” hoax, the demolitions must begin at the location of the airplane holes. Therefore the airplanes must appear to penetrate and completely enter the tower, at very precise locations. There is no way the engineers could guarantee that.

An aluminum passenger jet simply will not enter a steel and concrete tower . The tower is much, much stronger. The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand the crash of a commercial jetliner. A real plane would mostly crash up against the side of the tower, exploding and sending serial number wreckage down to the street below. Such an occurrence would do very little damage to the building, but would obliterate the official story.

Holmgren knew enough about physics and airplanes to reason that far, and concluded that it must have been a missile strike. Missiles can be precision targeted, at least more so than airplanes. And missiles are good for blowing large holes in strong structures. But he didn’t know enough about video technology to rule out live motion tracking, as I have done.

And there are other problems with missiles. Missiles blow the hell out of things. How could a missile be controlled to create a plane-shaped hole? Could pre-planted explosives in the building help determine the shape of the hole? Yes, but then why not just use the pre-planted explosives by themselves? Why complicate things with a missile?

What About Amateur Photographers?

Further, even if an incoming missile could be replaced on live TV with an airplane image, what about amateur photographers? With anything flying towards the twin towers, chances are very good that many people would shoot photos and videos. This becomes a sticky problem. On the other hand, if there is no flying object of any kind, the chances of an incriminating amateur video drop drastically. People shoot pictures of flying things. But how does someone shoot a picture of nothing?

It’s possible that someone would inadvertently shoot video of the tower exploding. But there would be far, far less of those to deal with, than there would with any sort of flying object to attract attention.

The strategy for dealing with amateur photographers is first to confiscate. We know for certain that agents were in position around the towers confiscating cameras and deleting digital files. If incriminating footage slipped through the Gestapo, the next strategy would be to co-opt. “What We Saw” by “Bob & Bri” is very dramatic home video shot from an apartment just northwest of the towers. They began shooting shortly after the first “airplane strike”. They captured both of the demolitions. But the second “airplane strike”was evidently edited out.

If confiscating and co-opting fail, and someone did decide to go public with footage of no plane, the perpe-traitors would simply claim that this footage was faked. They would claim that the photographer removed the airplane from the footage. They would seize the no-plane footage, composite an airplane into it, and claim that was the original. A computer with editing software and files would be planted as evidence, and the photographer would be charged with being a terrorist. He would be sent to prison, and silenced.

The hole in the north tower shows a few perimeter columns which are bent inward. This has been cited as proof that the tower was hit from outside with some sort of flying object. But this is not necessarily true. A sagging floor will create an inward pull between the core and perimeter. We see this trick occurring shortly before the main demolitions, where the outer wall sections are bent significantly inward, at places where nothing is alleged to have hit from the outside.

Can the perpe-traitors really control the amateur video? If you are inclined to think not, then answer this: Where is the video of the hole forming in the south tower? The best video to show that would be CNN Ghostplane. Ghostplane is edited. We see the airplane image enter the tower, we see the wings pass through the wall without creating the hole. We see the white explosions come out of the wall, then we see the orange and black fireball coming from deep within the building.

Ghostplane is supposedly amateur footage shot by Michael Hezarkhani. Who edited it? What did the missing footage show? What format was the original? Where is that tape? Why does Hezarkhani say that he is not allowed to speak about his video, on advice of his lawyer?

And what about Chopper 5? Shouldn’t there be thousands, or at least hundreds of different copies around, recorded by hundreds of different people on their home VCR decks? Where are they? There are only two (2) versions of Chopper 5 – the west coast and the east coast. The two are quite different from one another, and are suspect. Where is an actual original recording off of the television?

I have advertised and sent out numerous requests for original television recordings from 9/11. When it comes to Chopper 5, they simply do not exist. WNYW FOX 5 TV in New York has refused all requests to license the footage.

Gelitin

The airplane–shaped holes were blown with pre-planted explosives. I strongly suspect that “Gelitin” were the crew in charge of setting up the explosives in the North Tower. Who are Gelitin?

Get this: According to an August 2001 New York Times article "Balcony Scene (or unseen) Atop the World", a group of “artists” calling themselves “Gelitin” took over and occupied the 91st floor of the North prior to 9/11. In what was dubbed a work of performance art entitled "The B-Thing", they built a structural balcony and were photographed out on it.

They made drawings that included the layout of the core columns, and the perimeter columns. A surviving drawing is made showing precisely the correct number of 240 perimeter columns.

“AA11” allegedly struck at the 92nd floor of the North tower. How suspicious is it that “Gelatin” were holed up at floor 91, and outside on the perimeter doing who knows what? Does anyone believe these were performance artists?

The Smith Act

2008-06-11T08:45:00.000-07:00

This article is fictional. It is dialog from an unpublished screenplay, where a fictional character called "John" researches 9/11 and questions the legitimacy of government.

I, Alexander Baker, do not wish to advocate, abet, advise, nor teach the duty, necessity, desirability, nor propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States nor the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, nor the government of any political subdivision therein, by force nor violence, nor by the assassination of any officer of any such government; and

I, Alexander Baker, do not intend to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, I have not printed, published, edited, issued, circulated, sold, distributed, nor publicly displayed any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, nor propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force and/or violence, nor attempted to do so, and

I, Alexander Baker do not wish to organize nor help nor attempt to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, and/or encourage the overthrow and/or destruction of any such government by force and/or violence; nor do I wish to become nor am I a member of, nor am I affiliated with, any such society, group, and/or assembly of persons, and I do not know the purposes thereof.

Do You Want to Overthrow the United States Government?

2008-06-10T22:18:00.000-07:00

The following is fictional. It is dialog from an unpublished screenplay, in which a character named "John" researches 9/11 and questions the legitimacy of government. Please see this disclaimer.

If 9/11 doesn't make you withdraw support for the continued existence of the government, what would?

Most people support the official story of 9/11. That's a far cry from believing it. Some actually believe it, I suppose. But those people are simply stupid. For better or worse, half of all people are below average in intelligence. But none of the reasonably intelligent upper half actually believes the official story of 9/11. Not a single one. The details of the narrative range from far-fetched to physically impossible.

Q: Why do people support it?

A: Fear.

If the truth of 9/11 were to become widely acknowledged, it could very easily lead to a Constitutional crises or revolution of some sort. What form it might take is not knowable. A very volatile situation though.

Most people are afraid of revolution in any form. They don't necessarily like what "their" government and "their" media did on 9/11, but even those who are diametrically opposed to the endless war, nonetheless support the concept of continued government as such. I find that unfortunate, for the free market would provide all the same services as government, and would do so cheaper and more efficiently. I agree with a large body of literature which finds central government harmful and unnecessary.

But that is the answer to the human riddle of 9/11 story support. Fear of revolution. That explains why the engineers go along with the absurd gravity collapse theory. That's why so many alternative news outlets play along. They can put 2 and 2 together. If the revolution is to be avoided, the official story of 9/11 must be upheld.

I turn the question around. If you are a 9/11 truther, do you support a revolution?. Do you support the abolishment of the United States? So many truthers say the goal is "a new investigation". I find this laughable. Truthers elaborate: "A new and TRULY INDEPENDENT investigation". I laugh harder. A government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation. Thus government is a corrupt, criminal organization by definition. It is no more capable of investigating its own crimes than any other criminal organization is.

And people know this in their hearts. Yet they fear revolution. They have been so conditioned to equate "government" with "society", they imagine the world flying apart in the absence of an all powerful state running every aspect of their lives.

So people stop short. Somewhere along the line, nearly everyone stops short of the inescapable conclusion, that is that government must be abolished. It cannot be fixed. I would point out that the true founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, makes it quite clear that "it is the right of the people to . . . abolish it".

If 9/11 doesn't make you withdraw support for the continued existence of the government, what would?

So I must confront a very harsh reality about people. People like 9/11. People like the war. Whether they benefit outright, like the defense contractors, or mistakenly BELIEVE they benefit, people like 9/11 and the war because they fear the alternative more. They are conditioned to believe in the goodness of government. They are wrong, but if 9/11 won't convince them, what will? Nothing I can think of.

So I must confront a very harsh reality about myself. I am unlike you. I'm different. What makes me different is that I am physically incapable of experiencing fear. This, owing to some bizarre nerve damage I suffered in 2002. This loss of fear allows me to contemplate the unthinkable, while most cannot. It also involves an escalating pain syndrome that is getting pretty unbearable.

Everyone wants to fit in somewhere. To be on a team. But I do not fit. I fully admit this. I am the different one. I do not belong among people.

Nose Out Challenge

2008-06-10T01:44:00.000-07:00

How does debris, or smoke, become a size and shape indistinguishable from the nose of a Boeing 767?

If you support the plane theory, tell me, which are noses, and which are debris exiting the building?

Chopper 5 and the Missing Shadow

2008-06-09T18:25:00.001-07:00

Chopper 5 was a live, real-time composite. Adding proper shadows was not feasible. The shot was composed in such a way that all surfaces requiring shadows were hidden. But, as we all now know, a terrible mistake was made. The nose of the airplane image accidentally was allowed to come out the back side of the layer mask, so that it appeared to come out of the back side of the building.

So the second generation composites had to attempt to cover up the screw up. The "Gamma Press" shot includes an object exiting the tower that looks a lot like the fuselage.

It's consistent with Chopper 5. Then a strange, 2D looking flame gobbles up the object, it disappears, and is never seen again. StillDiggin named this the "Venus Plane Trap". We could sort of believe it was the fuselage, or maybe an over-sized engine, or. . . something.

The Fairbanks video also shows a cylindrical "nose cone" exiting, but does not show the Venus Plane Trap. It is from such a low angle, that the real explosion expands far enough to simply overtake the nose cone image.

Alas, there was a terrible problem with the 2nd generation composites also. There is no exit wound on WTC2.

So then the third generation of composites was born, those which show a dust explosion. The clearest example of this may be Naudet. The Naudet footage shows a dust explosion for the nose out, and it looks nothing at all like the fuselage of a plane. The frames of Naudet that would show the Venus Plane Trap have been edited out. Highly suspicious editing.

Both GammaTV and Naudet show a very dark shadow from the "nose out", a shadow cast diagonally across the building face. No such shadow is present in Chopper 5. Whether it is supposed to be a fuselage, an engine, debris, dust or anything else, the missing shadow in Chopper 5 is irreconcilable with reality. Shadows do not take a day off.

All the observations in all of these videos are consistent with the following narrative:

1. Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 are live composites, carefully composed to be doable in real-time.
2. The nose of the airplane image accidentally slipped out of the layer mask.
3. Composites were created throughout the day on 9/11 which showed a metallic, cylindrical object exiting, complete with (more or less) correct shadows.
4. It was discovered that there was no exit wound.
5. New composites were created that showed a dust cloud instead of any solid object, complete with (more or less) correct shadows.

I am not aware of any other narrative which satisfies the evidence.