No Plane in the Wide Shot
FOX 5 anchor Jim Ryan says, “As you look at the picture from our chopper now arriving at the scene . . .” But what is he talking about? The helicopter is over New Jersey, about 4 miles from the World Trade Center. It begins to hover, drifting slowly to the left. One trade tower is burning and smoking. Why would the pilot not be hurrying toward what is already the news story of the year?
While we ponder that, ponder this: There is no plane in the wide shot, and it ought to be there. We can determine where the plane should be at the beginning of Chopper 5 by noting where it is later on. I’ve numbered the frames and stabilized the end of the video to eliminate camera motion. The nose of the plane is about to touch the edge of the tower in frame 423. From frame 407 to frame 423, a time span of 16 frames, the plane covers the indicated distance.
16 x 26 = 416, so we know that over 416 frames, the plane would cover 26 times the distance that it did in 16 frames. 416 frames earlier than frame 423 is frame 7. I’ve matched up the scale and marked off 26 times the distance. So in frame 7, the plane should be in the circle, and it is not.
I have intentionally over-estimated the distance traveled by the plane during 416 frames. When matching the scale of the towers between the zoomed-out and zoomed-in versions, I left the zoomed-in version (with the plane) a little too large, if anything. Could the plane still be just beyond the edge of the picture? If we let the video play forward from frame 7, 163 frames (more than 5 seconds) go by before the camera begins to zoom in. That corresponds to about 10 of the line segments. Here is frame 170. The plane should be here, and it isn’t. The plane isn’t anywhere.
Could the plane could be hiding in the smoke plume from the burning North Tower? No. The alleged flight path of this plane, “UA175”, was from the southwest. The smoke was blowing decidedly toward the southeast. Viewed from the north, as in the above shot, we can clearly see that the alleged flight path was nowhere near the drifting smoke.
We can use a different method to corroborate the estimate of where the plane should be in the wide shot. We know that the actual distance from the northeast corner of the North Tower to the southwest corner of the South Tower is about 526 feet. Flight 175 was alleged to be traveling 542 mph according to the official government NIST report. That’s 795 feet per second. 416 frames of video is 13.9 seconds. So the plane would go 13.9 x 795 feet or 11,035 feet between frame 7 and frame 423. 11,035 ft./526 ft. = 20.97, call it 21. So, during the time span in question, the plane would travel 21 times the distance across the towers. The towers measure 18 pixels across. 18 pixels x 21 = 378 pixels.
Measuring 378 pixels to the right places the airplane almost exactly where the other method did - inside the the picture, right from the beginning. There is no plane.
The number one reason why Chopper 5 was not replayed is that there is no plane in the wide shot. This alone is proof positive that Chopper 5 is a composite. If it was a real plane, it most likely would have been present at frame one, well within the picture, and certainly would have appeared by frame 170. Although the plane would have been small, about 4 pixels in length, it would have clearly been visible.
Here are a series of frames from a video I made under very similar (but slightly worse) conditions. It was early in the morning, 5 miles from Los Angeles airport, shooting toward the sun, as was the case with Chopper 5. It was a clear day, as was 9/11, and the haze made the background almost white, just like 9/11. The plane is small, but you can see it in every single frame, without exception. It’s an unmistakable gray silhouette.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Unstable Motion
under construction - need to add pictures and diagrams.
The miracle zoom and the missing plane are only the beginning of Chopper 5 oddities. Next is the unstable motion. A real plane flying through the air has very stable motion. Any changes in speed are very, very gradual. Video cameras scan images at an extremely consistent rate, 59.94 images every second. Therefore, a real plane on a stable video will move the same distance in every frame.
While the actual motion of an airplane is perfectly steady, certain random noise factors can affect the apparent motion of an airplane on video. I have exploited the presence of these noise factors to provide a scientific proof that the motion of the plane in Chopper 5 is too unstable to be real.
The noise factors that can influence the apparent motion of a moving airplane on video are:
1. Atmospherics
2. Video Resolution
3. Camera Motion
4. Measurement Error
If the air were perfectly transparent (which it isn’t), and if video had infinite resolution (which it doesn’t) and the camera was perfectly still (which it wasn’t) and if position measurements could be made with infinite precision (which they can’t), then the motion of the airplane would appear perfectly stable. Such perfect stability would be represented by a perfectly straight line on a graph of velocity over time.
In reality, the atmosphere can distort the apparent position of a plane a tiny bit, video resolution is only so good, the camera in Chopper 5 was moving, and there will be small errors in trying plot the exact position of the airplane in each frame.
All 4 of these are random errors. Each type of error adds to the deviation from perfect stability. These are as likely to be errant left as right, up as down. Such random errors tend to accumulate. They add up. Each error type will add to the total error, that is increase the deviation away from perfect stability. Each will make the graph line more jagged.
Therefore, if we can find a way to eliminate one source of error, while holding the other 3 sources of error perfectly constant, then we would expect to see the total error decrease. We would expect to see the graph line become less jagged. I have devised a method to do just that.
• Stabilize the video to subpixel accuracy, both X and Y.
• Catalog the distance each frame was moved in the stabilization process.
• Place a wireframe around the plane image frame by frame, going for best overall fit.
• Measure the change in airplane position (velocity) per frame, in both X and Y dimensions.
• Graph these position changes as “∆X Stabilized” and “∆Y Stabilized”.
• Calculate the “Raw” (un-stabilized) data by subtracting the distance each frame was moved from the velocity measurement of that frame.
• Graph these position changes as “∆X Raw” and “∆Y Raw”.
• Compare “Raw” graph line to the “Stabilized” graph line.
By doing this, we have subtracted the camera motion from the total error, while holding the other three error types perfectly constant. Any measurement error was held perfectly constant because the measurements were only made once. In a legitimate video, the stabilized graph line must be straighter, with less deviations from the norm, than the raw graph line. Here are various control cases which test the method. In each legitimate video, the graph line does indeed become more stable after stabilizing the video. Every time. The method does not fail.
In Chopper 5, however, the graph line becomes less stable after stabilizing the video. This simply cannot be a legitimate airplane video. Camera motion makes the apparent motion of any real airplane less stable. Therefore removing the camera motion must have the effect of reducing the instability. If it has the opposite effect, we know something is wrong.
Here is a video composite airplane crash that I found on the internet. I have no idea who made it. Using the above method, I compare raw versus stabilized data, and find that that airplane motion becomes shakier after removing the camera motion. Even if we ignore the fact that this jet airplane looks too small compared to the apartment building it crashes into, the velocity analysis is proof of video compositing. It has the same problem as Chopper 5.
Given sufficient time, a video compositor can correct motion problems. But Chopper 5 was shown live. There wasn’t time. The 9/11 perpetrators had to show us news helicopter shots, because if they didn’t, everyone would wonder where the news helicopters were. They were hoping the drifting helicopter shots would be steady enough so as to make the motion problems undetectable. Chopper 5 was almost that steady. But not quite.
Pinocchio's Nose
under construction
Pinocchio’s Nose
Overlaying a flying airplane image onto any video is easy. Videos are composited in layers. The flying airplane layer is prepared in advance. The airplane could be originally drawn on computer, or actual video of a real aircraft. Either way, the background is removed and the plane image sits on an otherwise transparent layer. Placing this layer on top of a second layer will make the plane appear to fly in front of everything else.
Making the plane appear to disappear behind the edge of a building requires adding a third layer, and using what’s called a “layer mask”. A layer mask defines areas of the screen where everything on that particular layer disappears. One way to create a mask is to draw a shape. Anything which goes inside the shape disappears. But compositing software can also create masks in real time based on differences in color and brightness. In Chopper 5, a mask was created to determine what was and was not “sky”.
Here, in Final Cut Pro, I’ve used luminance (brightness) to create a mask on video of the twin towers. Once correctly dialed in, the software has no difficulty distinguishing between the sky and everything else. We now have a total of 3 layers: The top layer is the towers with transparency instead of sky, the middle layer is the plane, and the bottom layer is the original video of the twin towers. Then all that needs to be done is to play the airplane layer. The plane crosses the sky, and disappears behind the tower.
Adding the plane and disappearing it inside the layer mask is easy. Trickier is to stop playing the airplane layer at the correct time. Stop it too soon, and the plane freezes or disappears in mid air. Stop it a little too late, and it will appear to slip out from the back side of the mask.
Unfortunately for the creators of Chopper 5, this is what happened. The airplane layer was played a little too long, and the nose of the airplane appeared to pop out from behind the tower. This has become known as “Pinocchio’s Nose” or “The Nose-Out”.
It is impossible that the nose cone of a real Boeing 767 could survive and pop out the back of the tower. It is hollow, made of plastic, and not designed to withstand any sort of impact. Plus, there is no “exit wound” on the tower where such an event would have occurred. Obviously the plane image was accidentally allowed to come out from behind the layer mask. The only alternative explanation is that what appears to be the nose of the plane is actually some sort of “dust explosion”. Yet the “dust explosion” is indistinguishable from the nose of the airplane.
Here are 6 cropped images, 3 are the nose of the airplane from before it appeared to enter the tower, 3 are from the nose-out event.
Pinocchio’s Nose
Overlaying a flying airplane image onto any video is easy. Videos are composited in layers. The flying airplane layer is prepared in advance. The airplane could be originally drawn on computer, or actual video of a real aircraft. Either way, the background is removed and the plane image sits on an otherwise transparent layer. Placing this layer on top of a second layer will make the plane appear to fly in front of everything else.
Making the plane appear to disappear behind the edge of a building requires adding a third layer, and using what’s called a “layer mask”. A layer mask defines areas of the screen where everything on that particular layer disappears. One way to create a mask is to draw a shape. Anything which goes inside the shape disappears. But compositing software can also create masks in real time based on differences in color and brightness. In Chopper 5, a mask was created to determine what was and was not “sky”.
Here, in Final Cut Pro, I’ve used luminance (brightness) to create a mask on video of the twin towers. Once correctly dialed in, the software has no difficulty distinguishing between the sky and everything else. We now have a total of 3 layers: The top layer is the towers with transparency instead of sky, the middle layer is the plane, and the bottom layer is the original video of the twin towers. Then all that needs to be done is to play the airplane layer. The plane crosses the sky, and disappears behind the tower.
Adding the plane and disappearing it inside the layer mask is easy. Trickier is to stop playing the airplane layer at the correct time. Stop it too soon, and the plane freezes or disappears in mid air. Stop it a little too late, and it will appear to slip out from the back side of the mask.
Unfortunately for the creators of Chopper 5, this is what happened. The airplane layer was played a little too long, and the nose of the airplane appeared to pop out from behind the tower. This has become known as “Pinocchio’s Nose” or “The Nose-Out”.
It is impossible that the nose cone of a real Boeing 767 could survive and pop out the back of the tower. It is hollow, made of plastic, and not designed to withstand any sort of impact. Plus, there is no “exit wound” on the tower where such an event would have occurred. Obviously the plane image was accidentally allowed to come out from behind the layer mask. The only alternative explanation is that what appears to be the nose of the plane is actually some sort of “dust explosion”. Yet the “dust explosion” is indistinguishable from the nose of the airplane.
Here are 6 cropped images, 3 are the nose of the airplane from before it appeared to enter the tower, 3 are from the nose-out event.
Can you tell which are which? How would it be possible that a dust explosion could become a size, shape and color that are indistinguishable from the nose of the very airplane that just crashed on the other side of the building?
Fade to Black
Under Construction
Evidently someone realized the nose-out error (a little too late), and faded down the entire picture to black, then faded back up once the airplane layer was turned off. It’s important to understand that this fade-to-black cannot be a signal interruption. To be sure, signal interruptions from news helicopters can and do happen, all the time. But they do not cause a fade to black. Rather, signal interruptions of this type will show up as “static”, or a “freeze frame”, or “pixelization”.
Above is a typical noise pattern as signal breaks up from a 9/11 news helicopter.
There were broadcast antennae on top of the North Tower, but these had nothing whatsoever to do with communications from any news helicopters. A news helicopter signal is sent up to a satellite by microwave, then relayed back down to the TV station.
A fade-to-black is done by pulling down a fader on a video console. Was it an accident? Yet another astonishing coincidence?Fox 5 weren’t the only ones to have “technical problems” right at the time of the second strike.
Here is the live sequence from CNN, which was showing a version of the ABC Chopper 7 footage. They too incorporate a quick fade to black, and a switch to a different angle, just as the “plane” is about to “impact”. Logically, either these fades were accidental or they were on purpose. What are the chances that two different networks both accidentally faded out picture, right at the time of history’s defining moment?
The Naudet brothers also captured the second “hit” from a different angle, but the frames which would show the “nose-out” event are edited out of the footage.
Cleansed
Cleansed
While other angles of the 2nd plane were replayed over and over again, on every network, the Chopper 5 footage was never replayed, except once on CNN a few minutes after the event. In the one and only replay, the airplane was covered up by logo graphics.
In 2005, an archive of 9/11 news videos appeared on the U.S. government site, “archive.org”. This included hundreds of hours of footage from September 11-13, from networks ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, and BBC. Mysteriously, the Chopper 5 video footage had been replaced. Though the original audio track featuring Jim Ryan and co. was unchanged, it now played under a completely different video sequence.
It could not be more obvious that the government and the news media are hiding something when it comes to Chopper 5.
Though Chopper 5 had been cleansed, another serious blunder was discovered in those news archives. At around 5:00 p.m. on 9/11, BBC anchor Phillip Hayton announced the “Salomon Brothers building collapsing”. Hayton explained “this was not as a result of a new attack, but because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attacks”. Solomon Brothers is another name for the infamous World Trade Center building 7. Indeed, WTC7 did completely collapse, straight down, in free-fall time, exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition. But get this: WTC7 collapsed at 5:20 p.m., 20 minutes after the BBC announced it.
Hayton throws the conversation to BBC reporter Jane Standley in New York, and as she delivers her story, WTC7 is clearly seen standing behind her. A graphic across the bottom of the screen reads “ The 47 storey Salomon Brothers Building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed”. The premature announcement of this unprecedented collapse is no less suspicious than if someone had announced the assassination of President Kennedy 20 minutes before it happened. Were the BBC fed the official script a little too early, or did the demolition of WTC7 go off a little too late?
Or was it a psychic prediction?
When news of the BBC early report of WTC7 broke in February of 2007, the entire news archive was deleted from archive.org, flushed down the memory hole.
It could not be more obvious that the government and the news media are hiding something when it comes to Chopper 5.
Though Chopper 5 had been cleansed, another serious blunder was discovered in those news archives. At around 5:00 p.m. on 9/11, BBC anchor Phillip Hayton announced the “Salomon Brothers building collapsing”. Hayton explained “this was not as a result of a new attack, but because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attacks”. Solomon Brothers is another name for the infamous World Trade Center building 7. Indeed, WTC7 did completely collapse, straight down, in free-fall time, exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition. But get this: WTC7 collapsed at 5:20 p.m., 20 minutes after the BBC announced it.
Hayton throws the conversation to BBC reporter Jane Standley in New York, and as she delivers her story, WTC7 is clearly seen standing behind her. A graphic across the bottom of the screen reads “ The 47 storey Salomon Brothers Building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed”. The premature announcement of this unprecedented collapse is no less suspicious than if someone had announced the assassination of President Kennedy 20 minutes before it happened. Were the BBC fed the official script a little too early, or did the demolition of WTC7 go off a little too late?
Or was it a psychic prediction?
When news of the BBC early report of WTC7 broke in February of 2007, the entire news archive was deleted from archive.org, flushed down the memory hole.
Fox Five Fakery - Contents
Under Construction - Web version of my chapter in upcoming Scholars for 9/11 Truth Book.
Fox Five Fakery
Overwhelming Evidence of No Planes
And Video Compositing Solves 9/11
By Alexander “Ace” Baker
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chopper 5
Psychic Predictions of WTC7 “Collapse”
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Legal Matters
I've attempted to influence the court case of Morgan Reynolds v Whoever-The-Hell-All he claims to be suing on the issue of no planes. The Number 1 piece of evidence in ANY no planes court case MUST be: Chopper 5.
Therefore, I have requested that attorney Jerry Leaphart has an ethical obligation to:
1. Name WNYW FOX 5 as a defendant
2. Subpoena the Chopper 5 footage.
Below is my correspondence with Morgan Reynolds, attorney Jerry Leaphart, co-author and litigant Judy Wood, Scholar for 9-11 Truth founder James Fetzer, and WNYW public affairs representative Isaura Nunez. Ms. Nunez has recently refused my request for a broadcast-quality copy of Chopper 5 for use in a documentary.
Therefore, I have requested that attorney Jerry Leaphart has an ethical obligation to:
1. Name WNYW FOX 5 as a defendant
2. Subpoena the Chopper 5 footage.
Below is my correspondence with Morgan Reynolds, attorney Jerry Leaphart, co-author and litigant Judy Wood, Scholar for 9-11 Truth founder James Fetzer, and WNYW public affairs representative Isaura Nunez. Ms. Nunez has recently refused my request for a broadcast-quality copy of Chopper 5 for use in a documentary.
From: ace@acebaker.com
Subject: WNYW Chopper 5 footage MUST be evidence in your case.
Date: March 12, 2008 7:51:04 PM PDT
To: Jsleaphart@cs.com, econrn@suddenlink.net
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, lisajudy@nctv.com, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM
Dear Morgan Reynolds and attorney Jerry Leaphart:
I have reviewed the documents in your Qui Tam lawsuit alleging no planes on 9-11. I must say, according to my scientific research, you are absolutely correct, there were no planes impacting the twin towers. However, it appears that you have failed to bring the most obvious, most crucial, most decisive evidence in your case.
The most crucial, most decisive, and most obvious evidence for no planes is the FOX 5, WNYW, "Chopper 5" footage. This is because:
1. There is no plane in the wide shot. Analysis has shown that the a real plane would be present in all of the first 170 video frames.
2. The plane image enters the picture 1 frame after a series of camera zooms.
3. The plane image becomes less stable after stablizing the background footage.
4. The nose of the airplane appears to pop out from behind the tower.
5. The picture fades to black right after the nose out.
6. The footage was never replayed.
7. The footage was cleansed from the official archives.
If the plane had been real, 1 is impossible, 2 is extremely unlikely, 3 is impossible, 4 is impossible, 5 is extremely suspicious, 6 is extremely suspicious, and 7 is extremely suspicious.
Mr. Leaphart, under the law, you have an ethical obligation to bring this evidence. I request that you "Doe in" WNYW, and subpoena the Chopper 5 footage. If you fail to bring this evidence, in my opinion, it will be a gross violation of your sworn ethical obligations under the law. If you are committed to representing your client, and proving no planes, I can think of absolutely no reason why you would not do this.
Please do the right thing. I implore you.
Copied on this email are:
James Fetzer Ph.D. - Founder of Scholars for 9-11 Truth.
Judy Wood, Ph.D, - Co-author with Dr. Reynolds, also a Qui-Tam plaintiff in 9-11 matters, and also represented by attorney Jerry Leaphart.
Isaura Nunez - Public Affairs and Media Relations, FOX 5.
Ms. Nunez has recently refused my request to license a broadcast-quality copy of Chopper 5. I have requested to be put in touch with the legal department at WNYW.
Sincerely,
Alexander "Ace" Baker
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: WNYW Chopper 5 footage MUST be evidence in your case.
Date: March 12, 2008 8:15:42 PM PDT
To: Jsleaphart@cs.com, ace@acebaker.com
Cc: econrn@suddenlink.net, lisajudy@nctv.com, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Jerry,
Based upon my familiarity with Ace Baker's study, I strongly second
his recommendation. This has to be among the most, if not the most,
important evidence available as to video fakery/presence of planes
on 9/11 in New York City. Please let me know if I can contribute.
Warm regards,
Jim
From: Jsleaphart@cs.com
Subject: Re: WNYW Chopper 5 footage MUST be evidence in your case.
Date: March 13, 2008 6:52:34 AM PDT
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, ace@acebaker.com
Cc: econrn@suddenlink.net, lisajudy@nctv.com, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM
In a message dated 3/12/2008 11:16:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jfetzer@d.umn.edu writes:
Please let me know if I can contribute.
Hi Jim,
I will let you know. Thanks for your message.
JL
From: econrn@suddenlink.net
Subject: Re: WNYW Chopper 5 footage MUST be evidence in your case.
Date: March 13, 2008 12:26:10 PM PDT
To: Jsleaphart@cs.com, ace@acebaker.com
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM, lisajudy@nctv.com
Mr. Baker:
FYI, my affidavit (sworn testimony) filed with the SDNY federal court contains the following:
52. Consider one video in particular. According to Ace Baker, musician, composer and videographer, FOX cleansed its Chopper 5 footage from the archives because there is: 1. No plane in the wide shot. 2. Miracle Zoom, too obvious. 3. Plane motion becomes less stable upon stabilizing the video. 4. Nose pops out from behind the layer mask. 5. Picture fades to black. 44
44 Source: http://www.acebaker.com/9-1/PinocchioStudy/Chopper5Velocity.html
In addition, my affidavit contains another paragraph regarding work by Mr. Baker:
80. The case for the remarkable lack of eyewitnesses who claim they saw and heard an airliner hit a twin tower as claimed by the defendants is presented well in a radio interview by Ace Baker on January 15, 2007, including audio clips of commentary by network anchors and reporters during 9/11, as well interviews with alleged witnesses to the alleged WTC airliner events. 57
57 http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/audio/911/Ace%20Baker%20%20Media%20Fakery%20Timeline%20Dynamic%20Duo%20-%2015%20Jan%202008.mp3
In the future, if you wish to make accusations against me and/or wish to fault my lawsuit, I suggest you rely on accurate facts to maximum extent possible before making charges. Diligent homework will aid you in this pursuit.
Regarding your advice on the ethics of attorney Leaphart, perhaps attorney Leaphart will comment in the future regarding his ethical obligations for Mr. Baker's edification, perhaps not. As a client, I have observed nothing but outstanding legal skills by Mr. Leaphart and the highest ethical standards on behalf of my lawsuit. I further observe that those eager to admonish others about their "ethical obligations" often are the least well qualified to do so. To offer a recent third party example, one Mr. Spitzer comes to mind.
I further suggest that you might consider filing your own lawsuit under the False Claims Act or another cause of action regarding the bogus WTC plane crashes. That would free you from up from your time-consuming obligation to counsel Reynolds and Leaphart on legal tactics, ethical obligations and intellectual content on behalf of the United States of America to expose and remedy fraud by NIST contractors.
Sincerely,
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.
From: ace@acebaker.com
Subject: Re: Accusation of Lepahart Legal Malpractice Restated and Re-Alleged
Date: March 13, 2008 7:24:43 PM PDT
To: econrn@suddenlink.net
Cc: Jsleaphart@cs.com, jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM, lisajudy@nctv.com
Have not seen said affidavit. Please link. Offered link appears to be an mp3 file of some sort, and is dead. Alleged affidavit appears to be irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Accusation is that no subpoena has been brought for Chopper 5 footage, and that WNYW has not been named as defendant.
Please forward link to:
1. Subpoena for Chopper 5 footage
2. Link to WNYW named as defendant.
Accusation that Attorney Leaphart has fallen below his sworn ethical obligation under the law is restated and re-alleged. Please prove me wrong. I beg you.
From: econrn@suddenlink.net
Subject: Re: Accusation of Lepahart Legal Malpractice Restated and Re-Alleged
Date: March 14, 2008 8:55:52 AM PDT
To: ace@acebaker.com
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM, lisajudy@nctv.com
The opening sentence from your earlier email:
"I have reviewed the documents in your Qui Tam lawsuit alleging no
planes on 9-11."
By contrast, read your new email below. Case closed.
From: ace@acebaker.com
Subject: Re: A harmless little reply, and some of my best writing :-)
Date: March 15, 2008 9:04:07 AM PDT
To: econrn@suddenlink.net
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, lisajudy@nctv.com, Jsleaphart@cs.com
My dearest Morgan,
No, the "case" is not closed.
My accusation was (and is) that Chopper 5 had not been subpoenaed, and that WNYW had not been named as a defendant. Your reply was an irrelevant non sequitur, containing a dead link to an mp3. When I said "Have not seen said affidavit", I meant "I have not seen any court documents which request the incriminating footage, and/or name the obvious perpetrator". When I said "please link" I meant "please provide an HTML hyperlink pointing to any copies of court documents which request the incriminating footage, and/or name the obvious perpetrator".
I hope that is clear now. In the words of a brilliant 9/11 researcher, "Can a Ph.D. . . . be this retarded?"
The answer to that question now, about you, is the same as it was then, about Steven Jones: No, Morgan Reynolds is not this retarded. Neither is Jerry Leaphart.
You know very well what you're doing, and you're doing it very well. Although your physics argument about planes is fundamentally correct, it's not threatening. We all know that the experts can argue kinetic energy and moment of inertia til the cows are hamburger. Same with the demolitions. Of course towers cannot pulverize themselves, but the experts can issue a blizzard of numbers and baffling BS, and the idiots in the general public blink, nod, and go back to watching American Idol.
On the other hand, the problems with Chopper 5 are obvious to anyone with eyesight. That's why they cleansed it. That's why they never replayed it. That's why they would fight a subpoena for it. Which would make them look guilty, like they're hiding something. Which they are. Because there's no plane in the wide shot.
Have I mentioned there's no plane where there's supposed to be a plane? I've counted, and the total quantity of planes, in the opening shot, is precisely zero. There are none, nada, zip, and nil. There aren't any, not even one. A plane fails to occur. No plane is evident. There's nary a plane apparent. There's an absence of plane. The plane is conspicuous by its absence, totally lacking, and unseen. It ain't there. There is no plane. Of plane, there is no. If playing Hamlet, the plane would choose not to be. The plane is not present and is not accounted for. The plane is away without official leave, missing in action, and derelict in its duty to be observable. The plane is guilty of a failure to appear. It's invisible. It's transparent. To say the plane was ephemeral or vaporous would be putting it mildly. It's non-existent.
There . . . is . . . no . . . plane.
Sincerely,
Ace Baker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)