Wednesday, January 7, 2009


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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?”


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Ace Baker
January 7, 2009


spooked said...

Thanks for your eloquent explanation.

The suicide thing pissed me off, but your explanation rings true for me.

Though I still don't know why everyone gets so hung up on no-planes when there is SO MUCH evidence about other key matters such as the nuking of the WTC.

spooked said...

Ace-- the predominant accusation about you is that you are an agent sent to obfuscate the truth about video fakery. Perhaps you could make a statement to the fact that you aren't an agent? While some may not believe you, at least you could be on the record for stating that you are not paid by an intelligence or government agency.

Ace Baker said...

For the record:

I, Alexander Collin "Ace" Baker am not, and never have been any sort of government agent. I have been a professional musician for 25 years. People are invited to verify, for example, that I have more than 1500 published titles as a BMI writer.

The Wikipedia article on me is accurate, though I feel it could be expanded.

I would never ever work for the government in any capacity. I rightly despise government, I am in fact a libertarian anarcho-capitalist in the tradition of Murray Rothbard.

Beyond that, I invite anyone interested in verifying my identity to call me on the telephone. My phone number is 818 789 7895. Please call only between 9am and 5 pm Pacific. I do not accept blocked calls, and I reserve the right to record and publish all calls.


Ace Baker

Ningen said...

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.

The people you directed this at - Fred, etc., right? - agree with you on this.

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 needed to find a way to explain how deeply that hurts me. 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.

Who cares what Fred, etc. think, if they are trying to mess with the evidence like you say? Shouldn't you be worried about what regular people, who have not been exposed to or convince of any of this, think?

I agree with some points you make. I never understood why Morgan Reynolds complicated his crash physics lawsuit by talking about directed energy weapons.

The defendants were proper, though, for a false claim lawsuit, because they contracted with NIST and analyzed the crash physics.

The Hutchison affidavit is a crock. I don't know or care if what he is saying is true - it looks like a crock, any judge would see it as a crock, and it was not necessary to make the points on crash physics. Maybe it was submitted with Judy Wood's lawsuit, but the judge treated all three lawsuits as one and Morgan Reynold's complaint talked a lot about DEW, apparently to suggest a motive for the contractors to fabricate the crash physics.

Thanks for reminding me of Mother's Finest. It's been years since I listened to them.

Ace Baker said...

Ningen -

No, sorry, "Fred" and "Killtown" and "Simon Shack" do NOT agree with me. They say the 9/11 videos were completely animated, and that the perps made mistakes of missing buildings, missing backdrops, shifting bridges, wrong perspectives, etc.

Those people have engaged in a massive campaign to smear me, and my wife. I'm having a very difficult time dealing with it.

Ace Baker said...

Ningen -

No, sorry, "Fred" and "Killtown" and "Simon Shack" do NOT agree with me. They say the 9/11 videos were completely animated, and that the perps made mistakes of missing buildings, missing backdrops, shifting bridges, wrong perspectives, etc.

Those people have engaged in a massive campaign to smear me, and my wife. I'm having a very difficult time dealing with it.

Ningen said...

I just meant agreement on faked planes in the videos. I generally understand your arguments. Read again what I wrote - I'm saying that your explanation for your "performance art" does not make sense.

Fake said...

Ace, what is happening at 2.20 - 4min in '911 amateur part 2' ?

Why do some researchers always focus on the 'penciled-in' aspect of the video ?

Incidentally, Simon Shack clearly does not state that the 911 videos are 'completely' animated. That is a misrepresentation.

Stop censoring the comments ace. By all means delete inappropriate comments but at the moment it seems you're picking and choosing to suit.

Ace Baker said...

Ningen, Dwight

You are wrong. Simon Shack, Fred, Killtown, Nico, Webfairy, Ozzy, et al

do NOT

support the idea of fake airplanes inserted into video.

They support the idea that the 9/11 videos are


These people are pushing false nonsense with no evidence. They have libeled me, and banned me and others from their forum.

My performance art makes sense to me. It was an expression of my anger, frustration, and disappointment. The "truth" movement is full of liars.

Perhaps the video version will be more clear to you.

Anonymous said...

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 needed to find a way to explain how deeply that hurts me. 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.

Well, just want to let you know that some people out there appreciate your work. In my case, I began to look into your work seriously when, during my brief stint posting on the 9/11 Movement forum, I said something reasonable and Webfairy accused me of being you posting under another account. Hah! Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

hey Ace, broken sticks here again.

the "complete animation" theory is rubbish. you're right.

and as we learn what happened, we're obviously going to have to go back on things we previously thought were correct at some stage. there was a time i thought there were a bunch of planes involved, for instance.
your comments make sense to me, anyway.

also, the performance art side of things, i completely understand too. i will NOT be posting any of my crazy shit like that on my youtube, just coz i don't want 911 morons to use it against my points about 911. Not sure if i was very clear there...

peace out man

oh, and i meant what i said! i'm going to remodel the whole shebang, working out camera positions and everything. big ass task though.

broken sticks

i'm not a member here (maybe some old membership somewhere) - so feel free to not display this comment. its cool.

Anonymous said...

I can't speak for everyone; myself though, I look forward with great enthusiasm to your upcoming film.

"9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera. 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."

Could you give a rough estimate for its debut?


Anonymous said...

Ace, you are a douche. You freaked everyone out and think that the above claims are any excuse. You caused WFUR to drop Fetzer and you should be ashamed!

Anonymous said...

Well first off, I don't understand or see any meaning in the suicidal act at all, and it gives me an idea, having read another confession from yours in which you set up some other people, that you are able to deceive people just to laugh at them.

Furthermore saying that Simon Shack supports a theory in which everything was animated is pure baloney, for people that like me, have seen every single inch of footage produced by Shack.

I am sorry Ace, you have just lost another fan . :(

Anonymous said...

Hey Ace, I'm with you most of the way here, but I have to say that your case against Fetzer is rather frivolous. What you describe sounds more like a difference of opinion than a case for disinfo. Note that just as you charge Fetzer of mishandling Hutchinson, likewise you can be accused of mishandling Fetzer, thus rendering you suspicious in the same vein. This is not to say that you are disinfo, or that Fetzer is not; rather, it is to say that when you make an accusation of this magnitude, the burden is on you to provide sufficient reasons for the accusation. I suggest you supplement your case against Fetzer if possible, or else reconsider the case entirely.

Anonymous said...

google: 9/11 Cancer

9/11 Firefighters Battling Thyroid Cancer
New York - 9-11 Causing Cancer - Runnin' Scared - Village Voice
9/11 CANCER COPS - New York Post
Rare blood cancer plaguing 9/11 survivors - The Cancer Blog

Anonymous said...

I guess you could call me a lone wolf researcher. I have been studying and trying to verify 911 for the past 3 years. I know all the names and all the characters. I have over 3000 hours of video, 4500 magazines, books, and articles.....over 10,000 emails and correspondence with 1000's in the "truth movement". And I still learn something new everyday.

I have come to many of the same conclusions as what Ace has written. Truth tells...lies sell. People are not interested in the truth they simply want to maintian comfortable lies. To boils down to only one thing. That to this day...not one single piece of airline debris has ever been verified in any way shape or form from any of the 4 planes from any of the 4 crash sites on 911. I only go by verifiable evidence. Video, photos, and witnesses have never proven a plane crash in aviation history. Only wreckage does.

What does no planes mean? All the arguing I see and read seems to focus on semantics AFTER you realize that there were no planes. Never try to understand how or why these criminals did what they did ( military, media, government, law enforcement etc.) just understand based on verifiable evidence that there were no planes. When you digress from that topic the perpetrators have won.

Anonymous said...

Some of the points you have raised concerning video footage on 9/11 have been VERY compelling to me (many thanks are due to you), and I think Fetzer is as much a hindrance as he is a help in getting the truth out so I see your point there.

However, your "stunt" only reinforces my previous opinion of you which is that you seem to think you are the only person whose truth about 9/11 matters, and that you are a hypocrite.

How can you imply that everyone else on the planet except you isn't interested in truth when you actively try to divert people away from other real evidence (Judy Wood's site) just because you are of the opinion that one of her associates is a fake?

The icing on the cake is the fact that you believe that you "solved 9/11" and that no-one cares.

That makes you a naive, self-obsessed individual who clearly has a superiority complex.

How ironic it would be if you really did believe in truth and you thought that your egocentric actions were somehow helping it to emerge.

I think not somehow.

Ace Baker said...

Judy Wood is a liar. Sorry. She has indeed done the work of presenting the photo evidence. But she then associates that with a false theory about the Hutchison Effect. There is NO Hutchison Effect. Wood knows this.

Judy has IGNORED crucial evidence. For example, the expanding rising mushroom cloud. It is proof of very significant heat, evidence Judy Wood is intent on sabotaging.

Ditto for molten metal. We have video of molten metal pouring out of the south tower. Judy has worked hard to discredit this evidence.


I continue to provide a link to Judy's site, look over on the right column.

Anonymous said...

But Ace, you seem to be saying that unless everyone follows the exact path/logic/assumptions that YOU want them to in relation to decrypting what happened on 9/11 - that by definition they are fighting to hide the truth.

That is flawed logic. Also, I don't believe one way or another in Wood or Hutchison's ultimate integrity - only that she's made 000's aware that is wasn't planes that brought the towers down - or explosives!!!!!!!

You've achieved that too!!!

Fighting for Kudos and Peer Supremecy IS NOT going to help ANYONE!

What you did to Fetzer and his audience was immature, selfish, and deeply offensive. I hope you stop being so self-serving and realise the truth of that someday soon.

Having said that, I wish you well because you helped open my eyes, and 000s of others.

Who are you fighting here? The Government? The Liars? or your own paranoia?

Ace Baker said...

No, Perplexed.

Logic is not MY logic. It is THE logic.

I didn't ASSUME anyone was a liar disinfo agent. I interacted with them and allowed them to prove it, one by one.

Nobody has refuted my analysis.

More later.

Anonymous said...

9/11 Nukes - Induction of cancer by ionizing radiation. Radiation-Induced Thyroid Cancer - Radiation-Induced Leukemia - Radiation-Induced Brain Cancers - Radiation-Induced Lung Cancer - Deaths from radiation induced cancers.

Anonymous said...

No Ace, you've thrown the baby out with the bath water.

You've tried to prove a point with your actions but actually you've just alienated yourself from most of the people you're trying to convert (if that's still your goal!)

No-one cares if you pick holes in other people's approach.Well, not the people that matter (i.e. the unconverted).

Now you've just crippled your credibility with people that might have been following your work and considering their positions on 9/11.

When you started to attack others in the movement you became as petty as those that attacked you and the other no-planers without good cause.

The really important thing is getting people to understand that it was an inside job, not breaking up belief in the evidence that exists.

People can think for themselves. They don't need a perfect answer to all questions because they just won't get one.

Now you've just given the"planers" another excuse to refute your evidence due to your hoax and apparently instability.

Still can't believe you'd do such a desperate thing.

Ace Baker said...


Please read what I wrote. No, I am not trying to convince the "truthers" about anything anymore. They (you?) don't care about truth.

Note that I said:

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

I give up. Uncle. I refuse to sacrifice my principles to obtain the approval of (insert name of "truth" leader).

The "truth" movement people have had their chance to prove me wrong. They have not, they will not, and they can not.

That's because I'm right. There were no plane crashes. I've proven it. 9/11 was a media job. I'm going to present the facts, in my own style, on my own time.

What anyone does with my work is up to them. I will go to my grave knowing I did not compromise.

Anonymous said...

"Please read what I wrote. No, I am not trying to convince the "truthers" about anything anymore. They (you?) don't care about truth."

I didn't say that Ace. You should be trying to convince the unconverted to 9/11 truth - not Fetzer or whoever.

9/11 truth will ALWAYS remain fragmented. FACT.

Nothing will EVER be proved to everyone's "satisfaction" either to those who know it was an inside job or those that don't.

So long as the Government and the media tell people that A is in fact B, then a certain % will always believe that it's B - no matter what.

Why waste your valuable work and credibility by giving "Joe Public" a reason to ignore you because you feign suicide on the radio? That was self defeating.

If you want to become a martyr to your principles then fine, but don't pretend you're helping to open new people's eyes anymore.

You are placing too much of an importance to yourself in this.

Many people have proof about 9/11 but I don't see you championing them...... just you being selfish and coming out with crass comments like you've solved 9/11 and then being a selfish SOB and upsetting countless people and wasting police time with a cheap and tacky stunt which you then have the arrogance to call "performance art".

You hear what you want to hear and seem to be in it for yourself now.

Ace Baker said...

I in no way compromised my principles. I did not violate anyone's property rights. Most people, e.g. Jim Fetzer, do not have a well-defined set of principles, that's the problem. It allows them to support evil institutions like government.

Look, I wrote a suicide scene for the end of my movie the required a realistic performance from a "truth" leader like Jim Fetzer. He did great.

Relax Perplexed. It's only a movie. A harmless little show about a crazy middle-aged musician dude who indicts the media for mass murder with proof of video compositing, and who realizes that the leaders of the "truth" movement are liars protecting the murderers.

A number of people lately are trying very hard to convince me not to call it as I see it. Good luck.

Anonymous said...

Great message sent by your suicide!! It proves your point Ace. Basically rather than focus on verfiable evidence these truthers will focus and "blame your behavior" as to why you should never be believed or trusted. This is what you have been saying all along. These crooks and mildec soldiers will attatch blame and fault everywhere they distract and derail however they can.

Of course with your suicide stunt you where able to shine the light upon anyone who objected to what you did. Rather than explain, analyze the evidence, look at the verifiable facts....they much rather discuss your personal behavior. That is a classic psy-op, deception execution cycle ploy used by the media and government. Rather than focus on Blagoyvich's evidence, the media focuses on his hair?!!!

Do another "stunt". I think there great.

Anonymous said...

If I showed up to investigate a crime scene.....would the photo of blood determine whose blood it was? Would an eyewitness prove whose blood it was? Would video prove whose blood was on the carpet? NO.....only physical testing can verify whose blood it was. Never in history has video, witnesses, or photos....regardless of how many there were....ever determined whose blood it is. Only physical testing and verification can determine the blood type, DNA, and confirm that it was a victim’s blood.

Fast forward to the planes of 911. Would a photo determine if a particular plane crashed? Would eyewitnesses prove a plane crash? Would video prove if a certain plane had crashed? NO....only physical testing can verify which plane may have crashed at a particular site. Never in history has video, witnesses, or photos....regardless of how many there may have been....ever determined if a plane crashed. Only physical testing and verification of the serial numbers and plane parts themselves can determine if and which plane may have crashed.

To this day....not one single piece of airliner debris has ever been tested or verified in any way shape or form from any of the 4 planes from any of the 4 locations on 911. Just like testing blood....only the physical verification from the wreckage determines a plane crash. Anyone demanding that there were planes based on video, photos, and witnesses without a single piece of verification should be considered part of the "Lie Movement". It’s as silly as being able to determine someone’s blood type from a photo. Never fall into the trap and always demand verifiable evidence. This is why the White House destroyed all the building material from ground zero. They realized that testing would easily expose the lies and the murders.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Physicist has said that no-planes is true but a distraction from the nuking of the WTC.

Ace Baker said...

I agree the demolitions were most likely some type of nuclear reaction, there seems to be evidence for both fission and fusion.

Anonymous Physicist is wrong about no-planes being a distraction. No planes is very important.

1. No planes proves demolition.
2. No planes proves media complicity.

Anonymous said...

What does NO PLANES on 911 mean?
•It would mean Larry Silverstein committed the largest insurance fraud in world history

•It would mean Bush lied about watching the first plane go into WTC 1

•It would mean hundreds of staged “terrorist drill participants” on the morning of 911 also lied. They were involved with a program called Able Danger in NYC on the very morning of 911.

•It would mean all government and military authorities at the Pentagon lied about identifying the remains of the passengers through DNA testing

•It would mean the “news” media and the hundreds of witnesses that were directly connected to the media companies themselves all lied about what they saw. (Watch “September Clues” to get a sample at the vast number of “media witnesses” that were the only ones interviewed on 911

•It would mean that Rupert Murdoch and his video feed to the world on every channel was a staged, conspired, and complicit lie to kill 1000’s of people

•It would call into question all leading media personnel who have refused to even allow ANY discussion of this topic such as Amy Goodman of NPR, Bill Maher, Arianna Huffington, Noam Chomsky, Tom Hartman…..add more of your own names. These people covered it up and allowed no dissention or discussion. They must be considered perpetrators.

•It would mean the Bush hand selected committee of 911 Commission is and would have been a complete farce (many already know this just based on results)

•It would expose the “remote controlled plane theory” as a rabbit hole. What this theory does is even if you are unsure that remotes may have been used…you are forced into accepting that there are planes to control in the first place.

•THERE WERE NO HIGHJACKERS. That means everyone in government, law enforcement, military, FBI, CIA, White House, media ALL lied and conspired to pass blame to people who never existed. This explains why 8 of the 19 are still alive and why none of them were on any passenger list or have ever been identified with DNA

•It would mean workers in Shanksville, at ground zero, and the Pentagon all planted evidence at a crime scene

•ALL of the “amateur footage” that was taken on the morning of 911 was doctored and fraudulent. The people that have reported and given as evidence their false video must be prosecuted. ALL of the amateur video was turned into authorities days after 911 giving plenty of time for the forgeries (some not very good and horribly inconsistent with each other)

•It means that millions of civilians and untold thousands of soldiers have been killed and slaughtered based on a known and conspired crime. War on Terror was a lie. ALL of it.

•Just the mere mention that there were no planes on 911 will have you banned from “truth groups” and deleted from even the most liberal of website forums. There are Trillions of dollars at stake should the public realize that no planes existed on 911.

•ALL the witnesses from USA Today at the Pentagon lied about the planes. They must be tried for treason.

•If this was a “New Pearl Harbor” we must go back a review everything regarding the fact that Pearl Harbor itself was a staged and conspired and fraudulent event. Is there any evidence to support the government claims of Pearl Harbor? Any Japanese planes shot down? Any testing of the ships for man-made explosives allowed?

•It also forces you to go back and see if this was planned since Bush took office and also the evidence that Bush fixed the elections in 2000 and 2004 to bring about this crime. His Presidency in the future could easily become “null and void”. His could be the first Presidency that the US could say never really happened because of all the known lies, cheating, fraud, conspiracy, crimes, and election rigging.

•“Authorities” and criminals within government have always said there was NO controlled demolition because it was the “planes” that brought the towers down. No planes means that of course the WTC’s 1, 2, and 7 were brought down with controlled demolitions and it implicates dozens of government agencies like NIST, FEMA, NTSB that all lied about the results, tests, and testimonies.

•No planes also forces you to look VERY CLOSELY at the passenger lists of the 4 planes reported missing on 911. Did any of them have close ties to banking, military, law or law enforcement, media, government, devout Christianity, or insurance…….basically the groups that profited the most from 911? (97% of all the passengers on all 4 planes have direct ties to these groups of perpetrators! Look for yourself)

* It would also mean that Osama Bin Laden had NOTHING to do with 911 just like he said one week after 911. Terrorists take pride in killing so effectively and despise being given credit for something they had nothing to do with. Bin Laden despised it.

•It means you will never be able to see or verify any evidence of any plane at any of the 4 locations on 911. EVER.
•It means you will never verify a single voice recorder or verifiable black box from any the 4 locations.
•It means the media and the government would had to have faked dozens of videos…..with the possibility of dozens of inconsistencies when you compare the videos side-by-side
•It would mean the media would then be complicit in the crimes and would pretty much have to do whatever it was told in terms of not covering crimes of the Bush regime at least until Bush was out of office.
•It would mean that the media must have committed many more crimes and cover-ups from other events over the last 7 years. Looking back on Katrina….coverage was terribly lacking….with more people dying or going missing from New Orleans than all the victims of the WTC’s combined!
•It means you will constantly find discrepencies in eyewitness testimony.
•It means there were no highjackers and that all the information provided by the government was a lie. It means you will find 100’s of inconsistancies with the governments story of the highjackers, how they boarded, why they were never on the passenger lists, never been indentified with DNA, and why as evidence only their passports are to be found at any of the crash sites….and no one elses?!
•It means that the “videos” shown on live TV will be different and “cleaned-up” by the time the evening news rolls around
•It means the War on Terror was a lie
•It means our military has lost 1000’s of soilders based on 100% lies
•It means Sadam Hussien and Bin Laden had nothing to do with 911
•It means the UK was in on the lies and never once questioned any evidence
•It means the “video” takers must be tried for treason
•No planes means there is now much greater understanding of why demolitions had to be used
•NO PLANES never means that there was never a missile, an alien space craft, daffy duck, nothing, a meteor… just means there were NO PLANES based on ANY verifiable evidence.
•No Planes means that EVERY video showing a precise passenger jet airliner was a fake. The people who turned these in as evidence should be hung for treason.
•No planes means that the entire Pentagon, military, and police enforcement never questioned the evidence that was never there. Silence of a crime is calling complicity.
•No planes means that every law passed in the name of terror was a lie

Ace Baker said...

Nice post Anonymous. I disagree slightly on one point, that of DNA testing. I think the real passengers were executed after the real planes landed. I'm sure blood was taken and brought to the WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville.

So the actual DNA testing was legitimate.

Ace Baker said...

I also disagree with Anonymous about "no real hijackers".

I think the real flights were really hijacked, by special ops, likely Israeli.

Anonymous said...

Thanx Ace...I just jotted those down off the top of my head.. I have 1000's more. My intention was to show "what else" no planes on 911 means and explains. It really does explain just about every single aspect of 911 and the myriad of questions and mysteries that have come from it. I wanted to respond to your response.....

Have you ever heard of a serial killer? Basically someone who goes around murdering people for years and decades for whatever particular reason. A major question that always arises when one of these criminals is caught is...."what did he do with all those bodies"? (Ironically this is a major question asked of the passengers aboard the flights of 911?) Many of these killers die or are executed without anyone ever knowing. My point is....I DONT KNOW....what the military, government, FBI, mossad, aliens, witness protection…..did with those people. Just like I don’t know what the serial killer may have done with all his victims. I may have a billion ideas and opinions…..though until I have verifiable proof....I am not going to assume or postulate. Until then...or until someone outside of the FBI can verify and test this supposed DNA that was recovered....I will continue to say the blood and testing is bogus. To this one outside the FBI has tested the passenger DNA or blood. You can hypothesize all you wish. Would it be easy to gather a DNA sample from these willing or unwilling participants from the “planes”? Sure it would…just like you say. We have the OJ trial to thank for that.

In terms of the passengers being executed….It would seem likely wouldn’t it? Why risk one of these people showing up at a press conference like in the movie “Capricorn One”? The saddest story is the one of the Pentagon worker who dropped his son off to get on flight 77 at Dulles. He told reporters that he had had a talk with his son earlier that morning about death and how not to be afraid of it. He told reporters that he talked to his son about how he should follow the orders of adults and to be a brave man. This father then took that day off on Tuesday Sept. 11th 2001 to go play golf. It was his first “day off” in over a decade. Lucky for him….he worked in the Pentagon at the EXACT window that was struck by his son’s flight 77!!!! 6 passengers on board flight 77 worked at the exact spot where the plane hit!!! If these killers are willing to sacrifice their own children….who knows what they did with these bodies and other passengers?

Ace….I live in the NYC area….and now that Bush is gone….I plan on devoting my entire life to the exposure of no planes on 911. More importantly…what it means for the future. No planes needs “new blood”….not people standing on street corners with megaphones handing out flyers. The people who have been fighting have done a tremendous job….though like a prize fighter who has taken too many hits to head over the years…it is essential that we bring in new prospects and new fighters?! Have you ever considered training someone?

Anonymous said...

"Most people, e.g. Jim Fetzer, do not have a well-defined set of principles, that's the problem. It allows them to support evil institutions like government." -Ace

I agree that "most people" fail to develop a well-defined set of principles, but to accuse Fetzer of this is absurd.

On the very show you committed pseudocide, Fetzer very elegantly and carefully outlined his position on several complicated topics. I happen to disagree with many of Fetzer's positions, but I cannot in all honesty accuse him of having ill-formed principles simply because I disagree with him. To do so is not only childish, but intellectually vile.

The fact is, Fetzer schooled you in basic philosophical principles on his show and demonstrated that his command of his position is far more refined than yours. When he asked you to clarify what in particular you found detestable about Griffin's global democracy for example, you punted and stated nothing specific about Griffin's view on the subject. Instead, you changed the subject and went on about how all government is bad across the board. While that may be true (I happen to sympathize with that view) it was irrelevant to the question at issue, e.g., what SPECIFICALLY does Griffin say or advocate that makes his particular philosophy so reprehensible? As Fetzer pointed out, accusing governments, or more specifically democracy, as either immoral or destructive is too coarse to be much of a "principle" at all. You have to look at the way the government works and the rationales behind its formation.

There are a host of intelligent, yet incompatible, arguments within the history of political philosophy regarding issues of fairness, justice and human rights. Fetzer holds a viewpoint that is consistent with his assumptions about the world. You and I happen to disagree with that viewpoint, but neither of us are justified in claiming that Fetzer fails to articulate the driving principles underlying his philosophy simply because we feel our views are "better." Further, Fetzer is among the most open, debatable persons in the public eye that I have ever seen. Had you not committed pseudocide on his show, you would have been given (just as you had been given) ample opportunity to further explain your political orientation and how it accounts for the "evilness" of institutions like government. You obviously declined to do so.

As it stands, you have no intellectual "high ground" relative to Fetzer. As I stated before, your case against him is frivolous at best.

Ace Baker said...

Fetzer gave no philosophical justification for the state. On the pseudocide episode, I was busy preparing what I had to do and say.

A better conversation between Fetzer and I took place on the previous "Real Deal", archives are available. I clearly articulated the libertarian philosophical position - voluntary behavior, homesteading, production, voluntary trade, no initiation of force.

It was Fetzer who "punted". I asked him if anyone should be allowed to offer a good or service at the barrel of a gun.

I suggested that I had formed my own "state", with my own "Constitution", and it included his residence in Wisconsin, and that he now owed me "taxes". I asked for the philosophical distinction between my "state" and the "United States".

Jim Fetzer gave a gobbledy good non-answer.

If you, or Fetzer or anyone would like to give me the distinction, I'll listen. Thus far I see no distinction whatsoever. Governments are inherently evil, and the masses of people support them because they have no clear moral, ethical framework upon which to evaluate the validity of such institutions.

Anonymous said...

I did listen to the previous Real Deal interview that you mention, and I agree that it was a very good interview. I thought you articulated your libertarian views well and I do side with you on most of your points. I also agree that Fetzer mishandled some of your hypothetical scenarios such as the one you mention. I've noticed that Fetzer unfortunately tends to go off on tangential monologues where he sort of loses touch with the issue at hand. I think this is simply a character trait rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, but that is only my opinion.

Nevertheless, Fetzer's position is not wholly indefensible. Perhaps if you had used the opportunity to interview him more strategically given the chance you had (and likely would have continued to have absent the pseudocide, I suspect), I expect Fetzer would have developed a response, or admitted that he was unable to if that was the case. Notice that Fetzer, at least to my knowledge, has not overly criticized your political philosophy, even though it is quite different from his. Rather, he provided you extra time to articulate your view, and respected your intelligence and right to disagree. That is the essence of productive discourse. I would suspect your ideal libertarian society would depend on precisely this sort of open debate if it were to succeed as well.

As far as the distinction goes regarding your analogy, I believe the issue could only be done justice if discussed at length. Briefly though, one could make the case that the analogy fails to consider the degree to which the nation-state represents its citizens' interests. While it happens to be the case that the US government fails to honestly represent its citizens' interests in the present, it need not necessarily be so. In theory, if the democracy were to work as purely as it was designed to work, the system would aim to serve the interests of its population and therefore derive at least some moral justification. Likewise, Fetzer seems to believe that democracy could work if it were run properly--not an inherently indefensible claim. At the same time, pure volunteerism, as you advocate, has some appeal but is not without its problems as well. This is why these matters should be discussed at length and with care. Fetzer may have skated around your direct questions, but he did not sabotage the discussion itself. In my opinion, that trumps everything.

Ace Baker said...

"Serving the interest of the citizens" cannot be a justification for the state. If people feel that a particular product "serves their interest", then they will pay for it voluntarily, with no need of coercion.

On the other hand, if people are unwilling to pay a particular price for some product, and must be forced to do so (i.e. taxed), then this is proof that their interest is not being served.

As soon as you allow anyone other than the individual to decide what is good for that individual, you have abandoned the concept of freedom.

In my hypothetical state, Jim Fetzer owes me $1000 tax per year. I will provide him with a pizza delivered to his door, and a pair of shoes. I decided this is in Jim's interest.

Therefore I have met your justification of the state.

Anonymous said...

"If people feel that a particular product 'serves their interest', then they will pay for it
voluntarily, with no need of coercion." -Ace

Ideally, this would be the case. Human nature, however, is less than ideal--at least historically. Humans tend to seek ways to acquire goods and services by NOT paying for them, i.e. by plundering, cheating and killing. One major motivation for centralized governance is to find more "civilized" ways of resolving disputes over wealth and property, so as to provide more safety and security from immoral and unjust behaviors. Supporters of democracy, for example, would likely argue that it is better to deal with conflicts through a non-violent court system than it is to duel on the streets. You may disagree with this position and perhaps prefer that individuals sort their differences out with violence if they wish, but that is a matter of taste, not universal principle. So again, to support a central government is not necessarily to be without principle. Therefore your charge against Fetzer remains unfounded.

"As soon as you allow anyone other than the individual to decide what is good for that individual, you have abandoned the concept of freedom." -Ace

In a nutshell, that is an agreeable definition of freedom, and I think many government-advocates would agree to it as well. However, a government supporter could argue that it is not only governments that undermine an individuals' right to choose, but any person could do so (i.e. through plundering and killing). Therefore, government theorists seek ways to maximize freedom while also preserving a degree of security (usually through government protection). Sure, this is a lesser-of-evils type of thinking, but few would argue that we live in a perfect world, and therefore we must compromise given the world we have. Besides, a government supporter need not believe that "freedom" is the highest good anyway; they may argue that other concepts like honor, virtue or piety are the highest goods and that freedom should rightfully be sacrificed to make way for these other, "higher" goods. Ancient Greek philosophy is a prime examples of this.

Ultimately though, I do agree with you that most, if not all, instances of centralized governance in history have been counter to the interests of its constituents and have all but annihilated human freedoms. Regardless though, you only have enough substance to disagree, or perhaps criticize, Jim Fetzer for his beliefs and actions; to accuse him of "deliberately screwing it up" based on what you've presented is egregiously foul. Unless there's is something you haven't revealed about Jim, your accusations about him don't make sense--especially for someone of your intellectual caliber.

Ace Baker said...

"Humans tend to seek ways to acquire goods and services by NOT paying for them, i.e. by plundering, cheating and killing. " -Ryan

Correct. When people people plunder, cheat and kill in an organized fashion on a large scale, that is known as "government".

Of course peaceful people want protection and justice. But giving the plunderers, cheaters, and murderers a monopoly over those services is absurd.

Competing private agencies would do a far better job of these services than your government monopoly, for the exact same reasons that competing private firms do a better job of everything.

Ace Baker said...

Ryan, answer my question:

What is the philosophical distinction between the "United States of America" and "The United States of Baker"?

I have a "Constitution", I provide services, I say they are in Jim Fetzer's best interest. My "law" says that Jim Fetzer owes me taxes.

Anonymous said...

What is the philosophical distinction between the "United States of America" and "The United States of Baker"?

First of all, I do not consider the United States of America, in all of its historical incarnations, to be synonymous with "pure" democracy. Therefore, I do not believe there would be much of a distinction between the USA and the USB. The more interesting question for me would be what distinction, if any, exists between pure democracy and the USB?

My answer to this question would be that insofar as a pure democracy aims to identify and preserve basic human rights throughout its borders, and provides a viable avenue by which its constituents can affect the nature and scope of government operations, it would derive legitimacy. Insofar as the USB fails to recognize basic human rights and fails to provide a viable means for citizen participation in government affairs, it loses legitimacy.

Since few would agree that pizzas and shoes are basic human rights, the provision of these goods and services would only be legitimate if Fetzer and his compatriots agree that this is a good function of the USB government. Presumably though, Fetzer and co. have no say in what the USB leadership does. Without the possibility of participation in government affairs, the USB loses legitimacy. If the USB violates human rights, it loses all legitimacy.

Now, the heart of your question, I believe, asks under what circumstance anyone, whether alone or as part of a crowd, can be justified in forcing another to do something against their will. The possible philosophical position on this would be that one is justified in coercing another when the coercer is in alignment with moral principles, such as those enumerated as basic human rights (again, however it's defined). This position would hold that when an adult is violating a child's basic rights for example (e.g. through violence or rape), it is permissible for a legitimate authority (like government) to step in and prevent the adult from continuing his assault of the child, even though this is against the adult's will. In addition, this philosophy would hold that it is permissible to ascribe responsibility for protecting human rights to all citizens in the state. Therefore, the theory would go, it is legitimate to have all citizens pool some money together to hire the enforcers of human rights--i.e. the police force--through uniform taxation (because those of lesser moral fiber might try to defer this "responsibility"). So, assuming that everyone bears equal moral responsibility, the extent to which the taxes are used to actually preserve human rights determines its legitimacy.

Finally, you imply that plundering, cheating and killing are endemic to all possible governments. This is misleading. Plundering, cheating and killing are more accurately endemic to human nature. Since governments are always comprised of humans, you end up with illegitimate governance as a consequence of human nature. Therefore, the source of "evil" governance is not the construct "government" itself, but the humans that happen to make it up. Unfortunately, moving to a volunteerist society instead does not eliminate the human problem itself, and therefore is also susceptible to "evilness."

Ace Baker said...

Ryan, you dodged the question about the USA. I presume therefore that you agree with me that it is illegitimate.

You suggest that a legitimate government is one that has the sanction of its citizens. I agree wholeheartedly. I think all people should be free to patronize a government of their choice. I do not endorse the "United States", it does not have my sanction, I don't agree to its terms. Give me the PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION for the fact they tax me.

When you suggest that theft and killing are not endemic of government per se, you ignore the very definition. Government is a territorial monopolist of taxation. Taxation is theft.

Since you've abandoned answering my USA vs. USB question, try another one:

Give a definition of theft that excludes taxation.

Anonymous said...

I definitely agree that the USA is illegitimate. It is a prime example of government gone terribly wrong. It violates human rights as a matter of policy.

I do not believe the US tax system either protects human rights nor represents the interests of its citizens. In fact, its entire monetary policy (especially the Fed and its fake money) is utterly corrupt. However, the USA is only one incarnation of governance out of many possible varieties. This is why I oppose your blanket statement that ALL governments are necessarily "evil." Fetzer believes US government COULD be legitimate if it made some changes. I happen to doubt it, but I cannot say that Fetzer's optimism is utterly unfounded. Government is nothing more than a way to centrally organize people; and it is only as good as the people that comprise it. If there is a way to centrally organize people that maximizes the preservation of human rights, then so be it. Who cares if it's technically a "government?"

As far as a philosophical justifcation for taxes is concerned, there is no such justification in the present USA. But in a legitimate government, it may be philosophically justified if it were in accord with sound moral principles. I think individuals like Fetzer are trying to align the US' spending with such principles; they just have not yet come to terms with the futility of such an endeaver with the present government. This does not mean that Fetzer, etc. could not be persuaded otherwise though.

If you do not endorse the "United States" nor agree to its terms, then why do you reside within it? Kevin Barrett supposedly emigrated to Morocco, why not follow suit and opt out of this monopoly?

Government is not necessarily a "territorial monopolist of taxation." It usually is, but there's no logical necessity there. Are you trying to separate "government" from the people who comprise it?

Theft is the seizing of another's wealth, both against the victim's will and against the victim's best interests. Taxation may be the seizing of wealth against a person's will (though not necessarily so), but presumably it is used in his or her best interest. In this definition, appropriating one's wealth for morally correct reasons is considered to be in the interests of the person since it satisfies the person's moral duty, even if he or she does not know it (a la Plato's Republic).

Robert said...

Dear Ace,
I admire your dedication.
I have spent most of the time since 911 living in absolute monarchies on the Arabian Peninsula; all of these monarchies provide more benefits and show more dedication to the well-being of their citizens than the USA.

Jim said...

I'm sorry, but any point you had was lost a long time ago. Now, you just appear to be a long-winded mad man.

Just stop.

Anonymous said...

This was a great thread until the ghastly troll 'jim'turned up attempting to close down discussion

If he is not interested he should fuck off elsewhere

I am with Ace on most issues but I dont agree that fetzer is disinfo. this attempt to cast genuine disagreement as cointelpro or the like is damaging. although there are gov agents in 911 truth , there is also room for disagreement without actually working for the bad guys

if anybody wants to know who is writing this you can see my channel


and i am not saying anything that I do not sincerely believe

H.S. said...

You know what? I don't know if I'm the only one, but I watched a reuploaded video your full movie on Youtube with a sacrilege of only 1k views (please repost it again, everyone) and everything rang fucking true to me. I am in midst of searching online for names of people that say there were no planes.

But the point is: I don't know if I'm the only one, but I am fucking happy that you faked your suicide because 1. you're still alive and 2. it ought to show the people that not everything that's fed to you during a very hard-hitting news (like I don't know, the bullfuckery of "official" 9/11 news?), just like what you demonstrated with your suicide and the information you said before the gunshot. And 1. you may have blown off much built-up steam by doing that in the interview and 2. it gets people to remember and actually think about what you said before you "died", as that time I think a lot of people thought of you as a quack. Win-win. Some need time to figure it out, some get it at 1st instance, some are just too neutered to get anything.

If you have a video to debunk their animation theory that'll be great. But I think your original movie already speaks for everything that they refused to listen. They could have accepted your version of interpretation as an alternative but NooOOooo. Geez! I won't say anything to demean or make the people who put you down in order to make this neutral, but man, in this, I support you. I don't know who Killtown is, but he better be an animation expert, because one day he's gonna answer for his baseless beliefs!!

Performance art? HAH! It's a freaking powerful statement! And Killtown went on Fetzer's and "Aww I don't know if you or the public can forgive Ace for this!" rather than thinking of the THOUSANDS who died in 9/11 and FAILING them by being politically correct and settling for little emotions instead of LOOKING at what freaking theory he's supporting and REFUSING to listen to sense!!!! Fuck I'm angry now. These people!! ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Stay strong Ace. Do you have a Youtube account and all? Anymore videos I can educate myself with?

Gotta love that song Mr. Wrong. How wrong they are!! Now I know why the Truth Movement failed!! They're full of mistakes, if not CROCKS!! ARGH!! It's an INSULT to the victims!!