Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Video Fakery AND Real Planes?? Owning Jones.
The following dialog between Steven Jones and me took place June 23-24 2008, and I await any further comment Dr. Jones may have. This came right after I submitted a 25 page paper on video compositing and no planes to the Journal of Nine Eleven Studies for review.
Dr. Jones is now evidently floating the idea that videos were faked AND there were real plane crashes. This is ridiculous on its face, and an understanding of the technology shows it to be impossible.
You must make finer distinctions than merely saying "fake" video. Some kinds of video fakery are possible to do in real time, some are only possible with editing time, some are extremely difficult even with editing time, and some are strictly impossible.
We see impossible physics in CNN Ghostplane. We see the wing through the wall, yet no damage to the wall. Later, there was damage to the wall. This is perfectly consistent with a simple type of compositing. That's why it looks so fake.
However, if this was a real plane crash, which actually broke the columns, then it means they had to copy and paste the wall back together so that it appears unbroken during the wing passage. This is next-to-impossible to do without detection. You would need to copy the undamaged wall information from somewhere. Where? Earlier frames? That would work, but we could run a difference matte, and could easily prove that pixels were copied from one frame to another.
If we accept that Chopper 5 was shown live, the "real planes + fakery" hypothesis is out. For example, there's no plane in the wide shot. This is perfectly consistent with the compositing hypothesis, because they did not intend to show that wide shot, only the zoom ed in shot. It is impossible to erase a flying plane out of the sky, in real time, on a shot that zooms and pans. It simply cannot be done with existing technology. This would require perfect motion tracking on the buildings, and the incoming airplane. Not possible.
First, it is more than 2 videos I challenge. Please read the paper I sent you for review. It is a consideration of the totality of the video record, and show that only the compositing hypothesis satisfies that data. I outline a fairly specific narrative involving 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation videos.
But yes, proving the nature of the video compositing present in Ghostplane, and/or Chopper 5 necessarily rules out the legitimacy of the other videos. I have explained this perfectly clearly. Some things are possible with editing, some things are not. Inserting an airplane and making it disappear through the wall is quite doable. Taking a real plane crash, and making it look like a bad special effect composite, is not possible. Therefore, there was no real plane crash. QED.
Consider Chopper 5 and its missing airplane in the wide shot. If we assume this footage was shown live, we can rule out a real airplane. A real airplane would have been present in the beginning sequence, including during zooms. Real time erasing an airplane from a zooming shot, and doing so undetectably, is impossible.
Therefore there was no real plane. QED.
The motion of the airplane in Chopper 5 becomes less stable upon stabilizing the footage. This is impossible with a real airplane. Therefore the airplane image is a composite. It is impossible to motion track reliably in real time, therefore the airplane image in Chopper 5 could not have been overlaid on top of a real plane in real time. Therefore the airplane image must not be covering up a real plane. Therefore no real plane was present. QED.
The Pinocchio's Nose event cannot be a real event, as explained in great detail in my paper. Therefore real time compositing was taking place. Real time compositing cannot cover up a real airplane. Therefore there was no real plane. QED.
I could go on, but it would run 25 pages, and it would be the paper I already sent you.
Since there was no real plane, all videos depicting a plane are composites. QED.
Perhaps you should clarify your hypothesis, Dr. Jones. You're suggesting there was a real plane crash, and that certain videos were faked, to serve as a honey pot for false research. What specifically do you argue was added/deleted/modified on which videos? Be specific. Only then could I address your claims in any more detail.
Pretty easy actually, once you understand the technology. A single flight path is modeled in a program such as Lightwave 3D. Once modeled, an airplane layer can be rendered from any virtual camera position. Camera motion is matched with a form of motion tracking called "match motion". Motion blur, focus, shadows, etc. are all standard plug-ins.
Amateurs? Prove it. Spooks were seizing cameras left and right. There was no flying object, therefore actual amateur footage of no-plane is unlikely, for why does someone shoot video of nothing? If video surfaced showing no plane, the perps would simply accuse that person of removing the plane, they would seize the footage, quickly and easily composite a plane into it, and claim that was the original. A computer with files would be planted as evidence, the photographer would be jailed as a terrorist, and that would be the end of it.
I don't care if there are 42 or 1042 of them. Any number of airplane videos can be composited.
It is instructive to consider the B-25 accident. The Empire State building has a non-structural facade. No steel columns were severed. Pieces fell to the street. Video was not available in those days. If video was available of the B-25, I'm sure that whatever damage was done appeared to occur as the airplane was interacting with the building material. This is in sharp contradistinction to CNN Ghostplane.
As far as I knew, pieces of the B-25 fell down to the street on the impact side. Entering the building is a bit misleading, because of the structural differences between the buildings. The twin towers had structural box columns right at the perimeter.
I think the best data we have on jets hitting strong things is Sandia. Score was Wall 100, Jet 0. I think the strength of the Sandia wall was comparable to the strength of a floor assembly, edge on. Those floors had to transfer lateral loading to the core.
One gets the Tower to oscillate like that in the absence of a plane-hit by setting off explosive charges. Those charges are asymmetrical on the tower, they exert force, the building is flexible. Very flexible. It was known to sway in the wind all the time. Newton. equal and opposite. Force. As in pushing. We've been through this. At length. It's not so different from rocket thrust. Explosion goes one way, pushes stuff the other way.
Who said it has to equal the momentum of a Boeing 767? What plane? Let's begin by asking what NIST used for input data to their Moire. What was actually measured, and could I please see that?
Dr. Jones is now evidently floating the idea that videos were faked AND there were real plane crashes. This is ridiculous on its face, and an understanding of the technology shows it to be impossible.
Ace,
1. If two videos were "faked", does that necessarily mean that ALL videos of a plane hitting the So Tower were faked, including a number of amateur videos? could not faking the two videos be part of the Machiavellian plan (as someone pointed out, Mike I think) rather than "proof" of "no planes"? Please clarify your logic here.
-Steven Jones
You must make finer distinctions than merely saying "fake" video. Some kinds of video fakery are possible to do in real time, some are only possible with editing time, some are extremely difficult even with editing time, and some are strictly impossible.
We see impossible physics in CNN Ghostplane. We see the wing through the wall, yet no damage to the wall. Later, there was damage to the wall. This is perfectly consistent with a simple type of compositing. That's why it looks so fake.
However, if this was a real plane crash, which actually broke the columns, then it means they had to copy and paste the wall back together so that it appears unbroken during the wing passage. This is next-to-impossible to do without detection. You would need to copy the undamaged wall information from somewhere. Where? Earlier frames? That would work, but we could run a difference matte, and could easily prove that pixels were copied from one frame to another.
If we accept that Chopper 5 was shown live, the "real planes + fakery" hypothesis is out. For example, there's no plane in the wide shot. This is perfectly consistent with the compositing hypothesis, because they did not intend to show that wide shot, only the zoom ed in shot. It is impossible to erase a flying plane out of the sky, in real time, on a shot that zooms and pans. It simply cannot be done with existing technology. This would require perfect motion tracking on the buildings, and the incoming airplane. Not possible.
Suppose I grant that you are correct about the two videos you challenge, does that necessarily mean that ALL videos of a plane hitting the So Tower were erroneous, including a number of amateur videos? could not these two videos be part of the Machiavellian plan (as someone pointed out, Mike I think) rather than "proof" of "no planes"? Please clarify your logic here.
-Steven Jones
First, it is more than 2 videos I challenge. Please read the paper I sent you for review. It is a consideration of the totality of the video record, and show that only the compositing hypothesis satisfies that data. I outline a fairly specific narrative involving 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation videos.
But yes, proving the nature of the video compositing present in Ghostplane, and/or Chopper 5 necessarily rules out the legitimacy of the other videos. I have explained this perfectly clearly. Some things are possible with editing, some things are not. Inserting an airplane and making it disappear through the wall is quite doable. Taking a real plane crash, and making it look like a bad special effect composite, is not possible. Therefore, there was no real plane crash. QED.
Consider Chopper 5 and its missing airplane in the wide shot. If we assume this footage was shown live, we can rule out a real airplane. A real airplane would have been present in the beginning sequence, including during zooms. Real time erasing an airplane from a zooming shot, and doing so undetectably, is impossible.
Therefore there was no real plane. QED.
The motion of the airplane in Chopper 5 becomes less stable upon stabilizing the footage. This is impossible with a real airplane. Therefore the airplane image is a composite. It is impossible to motion track reliably in real time, therefore the airplane image in Chopper 5 could not have been overlaid on top of a real plane in real time. Therefore the airplane image must not be covering up a real plane. Therefore no real plane was present. QED.
The Pinocchio's Nose event cannot be a real event, as explained in great detail in my paper. Therefore real time compositing was taking place. Real time compositing cannot cover up a real airplane. Therefore there was no real plane. QED.
I could go on, but it would run 25 pages, and it would be the paper I already sent you.
Since there was no real plane, all videos depicting a plane are composites. QED.
Perhaps you should clarify your hypothesis, Dr. Jones. You're suggesting there was a real plane crash, and that certain videos were faked, to serve as a honey pot for false research. What specifically do you argue was added/deleted/modified on which videos? Be specific. Only then could I address your claims in any more detail.
1b. In particular, How do you account for multiple, independent amateur videos of a jet hitting the So. Tower?
-Steven Jones
Pretty easy actually, once you understand the technology. A single flight path is modeled in a program such as Lightwave 3D. Once modeled, an airplane layer can be rendered from any virtual camera position. Camera motion is matched with a form of motion tracking called "match motion". Motion blur, focus, shadows, etc. are all standard plug-ins.
Amateurs? Prove it. Spooks were seizing cameras left and right. There was no flying object, therefore actual amateur footage of no-plane is unlikely, for why does someone shoot video of nothing? If video surfaced showing no plane, the perps would simply accuse that person of removing the plane, they would seize the footage, quickly and easily composite a plane into it, and claim that was the original. A computer with files would be planted as evidence, the photographer would be jailed as a terrorist, and that would be the end of it.
I don't care if there are 42 or 1042 of them. Any number of airplane videos can be composited.
2. Did the Boeing plane which hit the Empire State Building ENTER into that building? Did it leave a hole showing where the wings hit? Relevant experimental data.
-Steven Jones
It is instructive to consider the B-25 accident. The Empire State building has a non-structural facade. No steel columns were severed. Pieces fell to the street. Video was not available in those days. If video was available of the B-25, I'm sure that whatever damage was done appeared to occur as the airplane was interacting with the building material. This is in sharp contradistinction to CNN Ghostplane.
2. It appears that we agree that a B-25 hit and ENTERED the Empire State Building, with pieces exiting the building. These data are consistent with observations of the planes hitting the Towers. Building on these data, can you provide other experimental evidences that a B-767 at high speed would NOT enter a WTC Tower?
-Steven Jones
As far as I knew, pieces of the B-25 fell down to the street on the impact side. Entering the building is a bit misleading, because of the structural differences between the buildings. The twin towers had structural box columns right at the perimeter.
I think the best data we have on jets hitting strong things is Sandia. Score was Wall 100, Jet 0. I think the strength of the Sandia wall was comparable to the strength of a floor assembly, edge on. Those floors had to transfer lateral loading to the core.
3. How do you account for NIST's detailed analysis of the oscillatory motion including damping of the So. Tower following hit? How does one get the Tower to oscillate like that in the absence of a plane-hit?
-Steven Jones
One gets the Tower to oscillate like that in the absence of a plane-hit by setting off explosive charges. Those charges are asymmetrical on the tower, they exert force, the building is flexible. Very flexible. It was known to sway in the wind all the time. Newton. equal and opposite. Force. As in pushing. We've been through this. At length. It's not so different from rocket thrust. Explosion goes one way, pushes stuff the other way.
3. How do you account for NIST's detailed analysis of the oscillatory motion including damping of the So. Tower following hit? How does one get the Tower to oscillate like that in the absence of a plane-hit? Note that Momentum must be conserved in ANY collision. A Boeing 767-200 traveling at high speed has enormous momentum, which can be calculated using P = MV. Similarly, explosives blowing OUT the side of the building would have some momentum -- but have you calculated how much? In other words, how much explosives (by weight) does one need to use, and at what velocity of the "exhaust" gases, to equal the enormous momentum of a high-speed B-767?
-Steven Jones
Who said it has to equal the momentum of a Boeing 767? What plane? Let's begin by asking what NIST used for input data to their Moire. What was actually measured, and could I please see that?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda
I should be working on the movie. I'll get it done, and it will be all it needs to be. But I'm messed up.
I didn't handle the Hardfire show well. There was no way I could have, under the circumstances. Steve Wright's pre-condition for doing the show was that he be supplied with a list of every claim I would make, and every video I would show, a week in advance. Originally, months before the show, I responded by saying that I needed the same consideration. I wanted to see everything Wright would present. I suggested that I give him my material 2 weeks in advance, and he present his to me one week in advance.
In response to that suggestion, Wright declined. He said he did not intend to present any new material. That turned out to be a lie, only the first of many. A week before the show, I gave Steve Wright this Word document, with links to many video files.
So the situation preceding the Hardfire show was that Wright new everything I would say, and I didn't have a clue what he would say. I knew this. I agreed to go forward anyway, because I wanted answers. At that time, there simply was no official story explaining away the problems in the 9/11 videos. I felt it was important to get an expert on the record answering these charges.
But what I should have done was this - I should have explained to the camera what I just explained in writing. I should have said that I've had no chance to research whatever claims Wright was going to make. I should have said that all claims would be addressed on my blog, and given the address.
Unfortunately, I could not respond on the show the way I would have liked, because I had promised to only present the videos I sent to Wright.
For example, on "no plane in the wide shot", I could have shown my control case. I shot video from 6 1/2 miles, into a bright sky, zoom out. Planes are visible.
For example, on "debris came out of the tower, and looked like a nose", I could have shown Gamma Press, and Fairbanks, which also look like a nose cone. Then, I could have shown Naudet, which clearly shows a dust creation. I could have mentioned that the edit in Naudet is exactly where the fade to black is in Chopper 5.
But, I held up to my end of the deal. It will be OK in the long run. Rest assured this will all be covered in my movie. But very few people will give a rat's ass anyway. So what? Who cares?
Wright lied his ass off, over and over. He says interlaced footage proves no compositing. He says the fade to black is Auto Gain Control. He says objects disappear at 8 pixels in size. He says planes must only go at a constant speed in a composite. He says a kerosene explosion can break steel.
Steve Wright, you are a filthy liar. You conspire to cover up mass murder, and I hate you. You lied to me, you lied to the world, and I can prove it.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Rasga's Over-Under Puffball
click image for larger version
Rasga Saias has produced a study claiming a contradiction in placement of the fake "puffball" seen in the 9/11 airplane composite videos. He says the puffball appears below the left wing in CNN Ghostplane, but above the left wing in Fairbanks. I repeat his study, and I agree.
Live Compositing Challenge to Steve Wright
I will shoot 3 sequences of high resolution progressive footage:
1. An airplane flying across the sky and disappearing behind the edge of a building.
2. The same building as in #1 with no airplane.
3. An airplane flying across the sky all by itself.
I'll remove the background from #3, leaving an airplane flying against a transparency, and color correct it as I see fit.
I will arrange time at a video editing room with an AVID symphony or similar. I'll arrive with the 3 video files. My goal will be to, in real-time, using real-time luma key, insert the airplane in #3 into video #2, and make it appear to fly across and disappear behind the edge of the building. We'll convert the composited output to NTSC, and also convert video #1 to NTSC.
I'll end up with two NTSC interlaced videos, both showing an airplane crossing the sky and disappearing behind a building edge. The test will be to see if Steve Wright can identify which video is the composite, and to point out any:
1. Mismatched interlace scan lines.
2. Color disagreement.
3. Harsh edges.
4. Differences in video noise between airplanes and building.
1. An airplane flying across the sky and disappearing behind the edge of a building.
2. The same building as in #1 with no airplane.
3. An airplane flying across the sky all by itself.
I'll remove the background from #3, leaving an airplane flying against a transparency, and color correct it as I see fit.
I will arrange time at a video editing room with an AVID symphony or similar. I'll arrive with the 3 video files. My goal will be to, in real-time, using real-time luma key, insert the airplane in #3 into video #2, and make it appear to fly across and disappear behind the edge of the building. We'll convert the composited output to NTSC, and also convert video #1 to NTSC.
I'll end up with two NTSC interlaced videos, both showing an airplane crossing the sky and disappearing behind a building edge. The test will be to see if Steve Wright can identify which video is the composite, and to point out any:
1. Mismatched interlace scan lines.
2. Color disagreement.
3. Harsh edges.
4. Differences in video noise between airplanes and building.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
An Exchange with Steve Wright
As one hilarious note, Wright claims that because Chopper 5 is in an interlaced video format, it cannot be a composite. By this reasoning, Jurassic Park DVD shows real live dinosaurs.
I never said movies were composited interlaced, exactly the opposite. Wright makes my point for me. In my paper, I state that the live composites are done progressive, then converted to interlaced. Of course Jurassic Park was composited in high resolution. That's MY point. It is Steve Wright who observes that Chopper 5 was given to him in an interlaced format, and then dishonestly concludes that the compositing must have been done in that format. I'm going to keep Wright's recorded words unchanged as he speaks of Chopper 5's interlacing, and substitute interlaced Jurassic Park footage. The audience will observe compositing expert Steve Wright "proving" the dinosaurs are real, the exact same way he "proved" the plane is real. And we will laugh hard. Or cry.
"Live compositing not possible" is another hilarious lie by Steve Wright. What was required is real-time luma key.
I ignore nothing, I've written the paper. Read it before you try the strawman argument.
Theory of Live 9/11 Video Composites
1. The Chopper is not "wobbling". The camera is gyroscopically stabilized. It presents a very stable shot. I still maintain that it was slightly unstable, measurably. Wright demonstrated that the airplane motion is pretty stable on the stabilized version of the video. What he didn't do, which I have done, is show that the airplane motion on the raw, unstabilized version of Chopper 5 is just as stable, and I say even more so. It most CERTAINLY is not any less stable.
2. No Motion Tracking is required, because the camera is gyroscopically stabilized.
3. Color correction of the airplane image is done ahead of time, against test shots, as I have demonstrated. It's a piece of cake, the planes are silhouettes.
4. Video noise is a non-issue. The composites are done at a high resolution, THEN converted to NTSC. I suspect they were done at 59.94 frames per second, progressive.
5. "Matching interlace scan lines" is a complete red herring, and Wright knows it. The composite is done in progressive format, then the entire thing is converted to NTSC interlaced. There is no possible way the scan lines could not match.
I think my challenge is a good way to test all this. No? Scientific method. Let's test it. While we're at it, let's test Wright's claim that Auto gain Control can make a camera go to black. No video camera I've tested will do this. I say he made that up. Where's your evidence for that whopper, Mr. Wright?
There is a huge fight brewing between Steve Wright and the executives at Avid.
Avid makes live compositing systems. Steve Wright is calling them liars. I'm going to push it until someone cries uncle. And it's going to be Mr. Wright (aka Mr. Wrong).
I'm glad Wright is admitting that live compositing is possible. Wright is, however, in effect, calling AVID liars. AVID claims live compositing, of exactly the type required to do a 9/11 live shot. Wright says it is impossible. The only way to really settle it is a live demonstration. Wright and I both know how to do it. The only part of the equation I can't duplicate is a gyroscopically stabilized camera mount. We won't need it, because Wright's own methods re-applied demonstrate the stability of the camera shot. (His method also demonstrates that the airplane image in Chopper 5 did not slow down on entry, I guess Steve didn't get the memo on that point. Pssssst, Steve, you're supposed to say it slowed down by 18%).
I never said that. The no-plane witnesses are interesting, but not proof in and of themselves. It is the fake videos, and the impossible physics, and the ever-changing story on the nose-out that proves no planes.
That's your final argument? That's a big IF. One could use the same "logic" to prove bigfoot. If just ONE of those bigfoot videos is authentic, or ONE of those photos is authentic, or ONE of the eyewitnesses is correct, then it PROVES bigfoot. There are lots of videos and photos and witnesses for bigfoot.
Only a true disinfo artist could try to claim that SOME fake videos are insufficient proof of no-planes. Even one provably fake video proves no-planes. CNN ghostplane is a freaking fake. It's physically impossible. No planes.
Guess what? There's no bigfoot. The "evidence" is fake, the witnesses are lying or mistaken. And there were no plane crashes on 9/11. Remember when Wright went on Hardfire and claimed that kerosene breaks steel? That's Baker's conundrum. I sent it to you Ron Wieck, and asked you to send it to Mackey. Copy Wright, it will be funny as hell.

Again, Baker has garbled the facts and tries to mislead the lay audience. Jurassic Park was composited at feature film resolution, shot out to film, then the finished film transfered to interlaced video, like all movies. The compositing was not done in interlaced video, and I am sure that Wright's friends at ILM will be enraged to hear Baker claim that it was. This example reveals Baker's persistent ignorance of the material he tries to use as "evidence".
-Steve Wright
I never said movies were composited interlaced, exactly the opposite. Wright makes my point for me. In my paper, I state that the live composites are done progressive, then converted to interlaced. Of course Jurassic Park was composited in high resolution. That's MY point. It is Steve Wright who observes that Chopper 5 was given to him in an interlaced format, and then dishonestly concludes that the compositing must have been done in that format. I'm going to keep Wright's recorded words unchanged as he speaks of Chopper 5's interlacing, and substitute interlaced Jurassic Park footage. The audience will observe compositing expert Steve Wright "proving" the dinosaurs are real, the exact same way he "proved" the plane is real. And we will laugh hard. Or cry.
"Live compositing not possible" is another hilarious lie by Steve Wright. What was required is real-time luma key.
Nobody said live compositing is not possible. The weatherman does it every night on the news. What Wright correctly stated was that lumakeying a pre-recorded jet video clip over a live video feed from a wobbling chopper camera AND motion-tracking it into position AND color correcting it AND matching the video noise AND matching the video interlaced lines - is impossible in real-time. Baker conveniently ignores this complete list of requirements in his video fakery rants.
-Steve Wright
I ignore nothing, I've written the paper. Read it before you try the strawman argument.
Theory of Live 9/11 Video Composites
1. The Chopper is not "wobbling". The camera is gyroscopically stabilized. It presents a very stable shot. I still maintain that it was slightly unstable, measurably. Wright demonstrated that the airplane motion is pretty stable on the stabilized version of the video. What he didn't do, which I have done, is show that the airplane motion on the raw, unstabilized version of Chopper 5 is just as stable, and I say even more so. It most CERTAINLY is not any less stable.
2. No Motion Tracking is required, because the camera is gyroscopically stabilized.
3. Color correction of the airplane image is done ahead of time, against test shots, as I have demonstrated. It's a piece of cake, the planes are silhouettes.
4. Video noise is a non-issue. The composites are done at a high resolution, THEN converted to NTSC. I suspect they were done at 59.94 frames per second, progressive.
5. "Matching interlace scan lines" is a complete red herring, and Wright knows it. The composite is done in progressive format, then the entire thing is converted to NTSC interlaced. There is no possible way the scan lines could not match.
I think my challenge is a good way to test all this. No? Scientific method. Let's test it. While we're at it, let's test Wright's claim that Auto gain Control can make a camera go to black. No video camera I've tested will do this. I say he made that up. Where's your evidence for that whopper, Mr. Wright?
There is a huge fight brewing between Steve Wright and the executives at Avid.
False controversy. There is no fight brewing between Steve Wright and the executives at Avid. The Avid executives have never even raised the topic of Baker with Wright. They, like Wright, simply have better things to do with their time than feed Baker's psychosis by responding to his inane allegations and garbled thinking.
-Steve Wright
Avid makes live compositing systems. Steve Wright is calling them liars. I'm going to push it until someone cries uncle. And it's going to be Mr. Wright (aka Mr. Wrong).
Wright does not call his friends at Avid liars. Wright calls Baker a bumbling psychotic that cannot get the facts straight who continues to try to fool the lay audience with his phony "analysis". Baker simply needs to invent a controversy that does not exist in a pathetic attempt to get more attention for himself. Avid will wisely ignore Baker.
-Steve Wright
I'm glad Wright is admitting that live compositing is possible. Wright is, however, in effect, calling AVID liars. AVID claims live compositing, of exactly the type required to do a 9/11 live shot. Wright says it is impossible. The only way to really settle it is a live demonstration. Wright and I both know how to do it. The only part of the equation I can't duplicate is a gyroscopically stabilized camera mount. We won't need it, because Wright's own methods re-applied demonstrate the stability of the camera shot. (His method also demonstrates that the airplane image in Chopper 5 did not slow down on entry, I guess Steve didn't get the memo on that point. Pssssst, Steve, you're supposed to say it slowed down by 18%).
As we saw on "Hardfire", Baker actually believes that if you find a few people that did not see planes crash into towers, that proves planes didn't. In fact, that proves nothing. The truth is, if you found 1000 people that did NOT see it, but ONE that really did, then that one observer PROVES planes hit the towers. By Baker's logic, if we can find a few people that did not see him born, then he does not exist. We could only wish.
-Steve Wright
I never said that. The no-plane witnesses are interesting, but not proof in and of themselves. It is the fake videos, and the impossible physics, and the ever-changing story on the nose-out that proves no planes.
The final nail in Baker's silly coffin is Wright's conundrum, which goes like this: If there exists even one authentic news video, camcorder video, photograph, or eye witness to the planes hitting the towers, then the planes are proven. However, to prove no planes, then every single news video, camcorder video, photograph, and eye witness must be fake. To fake these hundreds of different sources plus keep the perpetrators of those fakes silent all these years is absurd on the face of it. Just like Ace Baker.
-Steve Wright
That's your final argument? That's a big IF. One could use the same "logic" to prove bigfoot. If just ONE of those bigfoot videos is authentic, or ONE of those photos is authentic, or ONE of the eyewitnesses is correct, then it PROVES bigfoot. There are lots of videos and photos and witnesses for bigfoot.
Only a true disinfo artist could try to claim that SOME fake videos are insufficient proof of no-planes. Even one provably fake video proves no-planes. CNN ghostplane is a freaking fake. It's physically impossible. No planes.
Guess what? There's no bigfoot. The "evidence" is fake, the witnesses are lying or mistaken. And there were no plane crashes on 9/11. Remember when Wright went on Hardfire and claimed that kerosene breaks steel? That's Baker's conundrum. I sent it to you Ron Wieck, and asked you to send it to Mackey. Copy Wright, it will be funny as hell.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)