Thursday, June 26, 2008

Video Fakery AND Real Planes?? Owning Jones.

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.


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?


Anonymous said...

Strange that Steven Jones is doubting if a plane can enter a building like a WTC-tower.

I guess he knows that a plane from te nose to the wings is no more than a thin aluminium tube.

On impact it would be crushed by the mass of the tanks, wheels etc.

He should say smth. like : "NO WAY !".

Maybe next time...

btw. : Ace, thanks for what you're doing.

Professor Taylor said...

Ace, You are the man! You should "flip it" on him and propose the opposing positions. Ask him to prove that there were no planes and you "prove" that there were. When you come back and say..."I can't prove it without the media and hearsay," he's going realize how easy it is for him to prove there were NOT any.

Anonymous said...

It's good to see you're doing a great job Ace.


Anonymous said...

No planes research is the perfect barometer in which to smoke out shills like Steven Jones, and many others.

Show Mr. Jones videos of the outer face grid of the WTC (which were many stories high) turning to dust just after the "collapse", and he'll still stick with his thermite theory.

The guy is either a in the know shill, or his belief system cannot allow the no planes info. into his brain.

I suspect the latter.

Great work Ace, keep it up.

spooked said...

The B25 didn't completely enter the Emp.St.Bldg. There is one picture I have on my blog that shows the plane crumpled against the tower, with much of the plane sticking out. See here:
and here:

One weird thing is the B25 went in almost exactly where "UA175" went in the south tower-- the 78-79 floors.

I think the main part of the bldg that got caved in was where there windows. The floor slab was not even smashed in between the two stories.

And well done about the oscillation thing-- how that proves a plane is beyond me. Frankly, I would be amazed if a bomb went off in the tower and there WASN'T oscillation to some degree!

Anonymous said...

The Bob and Bri video editing, is unquestionable proof that videos were taken with no planes hitting buildings.

Anonymous said...

Nice dialog! See, people with differing opinions can actually discuss things scientifically, without the emotional bullshit ad hominems. Thanks Ace for reaching out to people with differing opinions, and to everyone who is contributing to these important discussions in an adult manner.

I am still learning to control my emotions, but I also love humor and satire. So I'll leave you with my last exchange with Ron, who has neither science nor humor.

"The loony-left jackass Dennis Kucinich's attempt to subvert the Constitution will fail. Impeachment is a remedy for serious crimes, NOT for policy disagreements. Bush and Cheney have committed no crimes."

"Are you really Harriet Myers?"

Peace and Blessings

Anonymous said...

Interesting back and forth. I find the knee-jerk reaction of many 'no-planers' of labeling people shills when they disagree to be very off-putting. While I have no doubt that it would be within the capability of the federal government to tamper with any and all video evidence, I also find it difficult to reconcile all of the eyewitness accounts of 'planes' hitting the buildings. I doubt all of these people are shills or liars or crazy, so right now I still think it most likely that projectiles were used during the attacks. Missiles, most likely modified to more similarly resemble civilian aircraft.