IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Questions: The Passengers, Cell Phone Calls, And Plane Swapping.

MikeR
post Feb 20 2014, 02:32 PM
Post #121





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 21 2014, 03:27 AM) *
In the coming days I will show you the error of his ways.


I look forward to your correction, IF and only if there were errors
in Ace's original. IMHO His music is intolerable but his video info is ACE

Ronald Wieck's persistent shillery has reduced my appetite for trollery
on YT to absolute zero. I have ever-diminishing patience for
the customary total info overload..

Please K.I.S.S. ....in line with the NP=non-pilot cause, Mike :-)

This post has been edited by MikeR: Feb 20 2014, 02:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 20 2014, 05:44 PM
Post #122





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



I must say Paul, your brain is wired in a very weird way.

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 20 2014, 06:50 AM) *
Let me tell you, the producer of that video makes an excellent case of video trickery in the mass media coverage of the faked strike on the WTC South Tower.


Shouldn't that read: 'an excellent case for video trickery'?

QUOTE
And regarding the videos of the South Tower's sway, were those videos faked, too?


'faked too'?
Huh????

If OSS said any of the 55 WTC2 hit videos were faked, then using 'faked too' might make sense.

But he doesn't. Therefore your brain is wired in a very weird way.

Why don't you just come out and say what you feel, instead of insinuating/misstating things?
If you feel the WTC2 sway videos are fake, then just say it for goodness sakes!
Stop beating around the bush.

This post has been edited by NP1Mike: Feb 20 2014, 05:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 20 2014, 07:11 PM
Post #123





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 21 2014, 09:44 AM) *
I must say Paul, your brain is wired in a very weird way.

Why don't you just come out and say what you feel, instead of insinuating/misstating things?
If you feel the WTC2 sway videos are fake, then just say it for goodness sakes!
Stop beating around the bush.


Can we Non-Pilots not allow oursillyselves to apply personal imagination
to help understand occasional bush-beaten relevant statements
that we No-Planers are compelled (for of lack of black-and-white evidence)
to type on rare occasions? rolleyes.gif

MikeR
(NP)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Feb 21 2014, 01:37 AM
Post #124





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 20 2014, 07:27 AM) *
In the coming days I will show you the error of his ways.


Hurray! Let's deal with this issue once and for all time and last put it to bed to focus on more important and more real and authentic investigative lines of inquiry capable of doing the victims justice by allowing historical scrutiny of the 9/11 even with clear eyes and near 20/20 hindsight unclouded by idiotic speculations who's ultimate aim it is to obfuscate, misdirect and in effect, cover up the truth at the heart of the matter where plane strike and CD form a logical chain capable of breakign the official story about what really happened on September 11, 2001.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 24 2014, 10:15 PM
Post #125





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 20 2014, 01:32 PM) *
I look forward to your correction, IF and only if there were errors
in Ace's original. IMHO His music is intolerable but his video info is ACE


Thanks for your patience in waiting for my reply Mike.
Here it is.

When I first watched the Baker Youtube video of the Hardfire TV show hosted by Ron Wieck, featuring Steve Wright 'video compositing expert' and himself, I had my bowl of popcorn and bottle of beer and was cheering Baker on. At the time I was toying with the no plane theory and enjoyed rooting for the under-dog.
I certainly couldn’t stomach Wieck and although Wright seemed like a likeable chap, Baker was the young, long-haired rebel who was going against the establishment.

But that was before I did my ‘no-plane’ homework. I had much to learn at the time.


The following errors were key (sorry Ace, this word isn't copyrighted just yet) for me in showing Ace Baker dropped the ball with his no plane theory.

Mr. Baker prides himself on having eyes of an eagle, a trait that is necessary if you are producing a series of videos to be released on the internet.

Yet Mr. Baker's eyes failed him, big time.
They failed him in a most embarrassing way too, inside a video that he released to a potential world wide audience!

1. "And there is no plane."

Mr. Baker's first boo-boo occurs at around the 5:00 min. mark of 'The Key' (his 7th video in his 'Key' series) where he is examining the Chopper 5 wide-angle shot.

He shoots himself and his entire no plane theory in the foot with the following statements:

"Wait a minute. Is something missing here? With the camera zoomed in, now it looks like the chopper is arriving at the scene. Seems that we weren't supposed to see that wide shot.

And that's because there's no plane in it...

The plane should be visible for over five seconds. That's 340 separate images. And there is no plane."

Mr. 'eagle-eye' Baker somehow missed the ‘no plane’ plane that was clearly in the Chopper 5 video for more than 5 seconds!

He chose to use the blurry Youtube version of the Chopper 5 wide-angle shot in his video rather than the original version (I wonder why?).
Although the plane can clearly be seen in the original version, it still can be made out in the Youtube version if you look closely enough. It's still there, for all of 5+ seconds. (It isn’t there in a second generation Youtube video, which is what we are seeing on Baker’s notebook computer.)

The most ironic part is that he then conducts an experiment to show the audience what a plane from 5-6 miles out should have looked like. He films a plane and then says:

"The plane is small and blurry, but it appears in every single frame" (in his experiment from 5-6 miles out shooting another plane.)

Why is it ironic? Because the plane in the Chopper 5 original version film can be seen just as clearly as the one he films in his experiment!!! Holy crap, Batman!!!


2. Nose-in-Nose-out Chopper 5:

Baker goes on to explain that the 'nose-in-nose-out' we see in the Chopper 5 video is conclusive proof that video fakery was used. That a blunder was made, and that is why we see the nose out.

The problem with his 'nose-in-nose-out' theory is that:

a) the shape of the nose out is not the exact same shape of the nose in! If it were simply a layering issue, the nose in and out would be an exact match.

b) all of the other videos taken from the other side of the building show a 'nose-out' (which is the engine) and then a continuation of the ‘nose’ flying in a trajectory towards Murray St.
This would mean that all of these cameramen had video layering issues (similar to Chopper 5) that they failed to cover up!

To use Mr. Baker's famous words "What are the chances of _that happening?" smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd July 2019 - 01:54 PM