Why They Dumped Out of Delay

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Idiots Fall for Stimulus Hoax?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again.

As usual.

He Gave Up His Life to Prove No Planes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Does Genghis Want Us to Think That?

click image for larger version

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

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

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

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

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

Genghis on the New and Improved Chopper 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

$$$ Reward for 9/11 Airplane Home Recordings

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

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

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

Sincerely, 

Ace Baker

Matt FInds "New" Version of Chopper 5

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

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

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

Discussion Thread at Pumpitout.

Link to download footage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click image for full size.

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

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

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

Dr. Ebbets Story

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

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

The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites

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

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

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

Received this email from Matt

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

Ace,

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

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

You must have already searched and found the source:

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

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

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

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

Thought I'd share.

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

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

Carry on.

Sincerely,
Matt