Ace Baker - Video Composite Theory Set, merged threads Options

[GroundPounder]

just to be clear,

video manipulation has been around since at least the zapruder film and
there are alloys of aluminum that are exceedingly strong (rivaling steel in various mechanical aspects), 2024-T6 for example, is and has been used in aircraft.

the rabbit hole is deep.....


edit: if it was a 757, the energy was available to penetrate the exterior of wtc1 at least

This post has been edited by GroundPounder: Nov 14 2008, 01:30 PM

[acebaker]

"Video Manipulation" is a vague term. Forms of video compositing have been around since the early days of movies, when actors would work in front of a movie screen.

What is important to 9/11 is understanding both the capabilities and limitations of digital video compositing, circa 2001.

The relative strengths of aluminum vs. steel is an interesting topic, but irrelevant to my proof. Assume for the sake of argument that the strength of the airplane is anything you'd like to assume - lesser than, equal to, or greater than the strength of the tower. No object colliding with another object can escape physics.

We observe NO physics occurring in the "crash" videos. None. For example, assume any strength you'd like for the airplane, then give an explanation for the magically healing columns.

[GroundPounder]

"Video Manipulation" is a vague term. Forms of video compositing have been around since the early days of movies, when actors would work in front of a movie screen.

What is important to 9/11 is understanding both the capabilities and limitations of digital video compositing, circa 2001.

The relative strengths of aluminum vs. steel is an interesting topic, but irrelevant to my proof. Assume for the sake of argument that the strength of the airplane is anything you'd like to assume - lesser than, equal to, or greater than the strength of the tower. No object colliding with another object can escape physics.

We observe NO physics occurring in the "crash" videos. None. For example, assume any strength you'd like for the airplane, then give an explanation for the magically healing columns.

i would imagine the capabilities of some were much better than others in 2001...seems like a question of money

agree w/ the physics angle of impacts...but don't argue that the exterior columns at the alleged impact site weren't damaged. the entry wound seems consistent w/ a strike in my opinion

i did not say that there was enough energy available for the plane or it's parts to exit if that's what you are suggesting.

[acebaker]

You don't have to imagine the capabilities of video compositing. I have given a demonstration of both the live videos, and the edited ones.

Live

Edited

You have not addressed the TIME at which the "entry" hole occurred. Please examine the video frames I have linked, under "magically healing columns". A certain frame shows the wing of the airplane past the wall of the tower, and no hole in the tower. The hole occurred at some time AFTER this wing appeared to pass through.

This is perfectly consistent with video compositing. I think it is completely inconsistent with a real crash.

If this is a real crash, there must be a physical explanation for this observation. Please offer such an explanation.

[GroundPounder]

for the sake of theorizing let's say all the video is suspect. let's say further that the only credible photographic evidence is that taken by non-digital cameras. i'm sure some were used and they showed holes in the buildings. now what?

[acebaker]

There is some compelling proof presented within this thread that cannot be ignored. I've always believed 'something' hit the towers - especially the first tower.

In the beginning I believed the official conpiracy theory as told by the media/government. After further research many years later, I fell upon a video
of WTC #7 and independent research for the Pentagon. I now realize that AA77 never hit the Pentagon.

Who's to say a similar stunt was not used for the towers? We have to remain open minded and solve the entire equation by satisfying all of the variables
listed.

The other side of this coin presents some strong evidence that an object did indeed impact the towers, or at least the first tower.

Is it possible that the truth lays somewhere between both studies? Is it possible that:

1. The Naudet video of the North tower strike was 'authentic' showing a projectile disguised as a plane/military aircraft?

2. The South tower composite footage was shown using images to portray a commerical airliner timed with an
explosion/military aircraft impact?

It is not possible to have covered up a flying incoming object with a video airplane, in real-time. Either Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 showed a real 767, or else there was no flying object. I've showed that Chopper 5 must be a composite. Therefore, no flying object.

On the first strike, the object in the video appears to be a 767 airplane, or very similar. We can say with certainty that no fixed-wing aircraft hit either tower, because of the absence of vortex.

This post has been edited by acebaker: Nov 14 2008, 04:00 PM

[acebaker]

for the sake of theorizing let's say all the video is suspect. let's say further that the only credible photographic evidence is that taken by non-digital cameras. i'm sure some were used and they showed holes in the buildings. now what?

Attempting to dismiss the video evidence is not going to fly. While fake video is not good for proving airplanes, fake video is great evidence for proving video fakery.

The videos constitute the VERY BEST and MOST IMPORTANT of all 9/11 evidence. Please do not suggest otherwise.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

[acebaker]

I'm certainly not suggesting that the holes in the buildings were fake. Everything about the videos is perfectly real, except the flying airplane images, and possibly the "puffballs".

[GroundPounder]

sorry, but my skepticism remains

ace, you need to work on your marketing skills. have you never sold used cars?

try something like this: 'what's it gonna take to get you into the 'no planes' theory today?'

beating me over the head isn't going to sell me. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

i like the compositing idea, but explain to me why it is not possible to composite out a plane? also, what do you mean by no vortex? are you saying the impact blast should have been 'jetted' away or something?

[grizz]

Even ignoring the fake airplane videos and media involvement, the evidence for an inside job is overwhelming.

Agreed.

Thanks for all your hard work, Ace. I still have one question that proponents of NPT don't seem to be able to answer. How do you explain the real life human beings who were in NYC that day who saw airplanes hit the buildings with their own eyes? The ones who saw it in real life, not on TV?

[GroundPounder]

the outward pressure from the fireball would have to attenuate those eddy currents i would think...dunno

definitely an inside job...

[INP]

Thank you very much Ace!

I find the analysis outstanding and well researched.
Unfortunately it is quit difficult to get people used to the idea ALL "live" coverage we saw on 9/11
was manipulated since this results to question nearly everything shown on TV.

Some month ago I more accidential bumped into some similar research on this topic and it convinced
me.
By any chance, do you know if any background scan of the Naudet brothers was done? To me these two
guys are highly suspect.

Again many thanks for your efforts. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[beatles64]

It wasn't he 2nd airplane strike that was filmed by J. & G. Naudet, but the 1st one, AA11.


Just for the accuracy: Carl

The Naudet film captures both, here is a link to the second strike from their footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uldHldT6Cg

[acebaker]

I'm not here to be nice. I'm here to be correct. I've gotten WAY to many very hurtful things said about me to be nice anymore, sorry.

Obviously you did not read the material. Here is the section on wake vortex, I assumed the pilots here would be very familiar with wake and wingtip vortices. If not, there is background material available.

Here is a study, and here is wikipedia.


"Covering Up" or "Composting Out" a flying object requires "motion tracking". Real-Time motion tracking did not exist in 2001, and to this day is not nearly reliable enough to track an incoming plane/missile/object in real-time. No way. The only way to think about hiding the real object would be to literally cover it up with a larger object, pasted on top of it.

To erase an object from video requires cloning pixels from somewhere, and pasting them over the object. Wherever the pixels were cloned from would be identical, which could be a dead giveaway. This is on top of the motion tracking problem. You can do this stuff to video, BUT NOT IN REAL TIME.

sorry, but my skepticism remains

ace, you need to work on your marketing skills. have you never sold used cars?

try something like this: 'what's it gonna take to get you into the 'no planes' theory today?'

beating me over the head isn't going to sell me. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

i like the compositing idea, but explain to me why it is not possible to composite out a plane? also, what do you mean by no vortex? are you saying the impact blast should have been 'jetted' away or something?

[acebaker]

Thank you very much Ace!

I find the analysis outstanding and well researched.
Unfortunately it is quit difficult to get people used to the idea ALL "live" coverage we saw on 9/11
was manipulated since this results to question nearly everything shown on TV.

Some month ago I more accidential bumped into some similar research on this topic and it convinced
me.
By any chance, do you know if any background scan of the Naudet brothers was done? To me these two
guys are highly suspect.

Again many thanks for your efforts. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

I don't know anything about the Naudet Bros. A year and a half ago I attempted to contact them, to see what format their video was shot in originally, and to request the missing 1 second edited out of the 2nd explosion. No response.

[grizz]

I'm not here to be nice. I'm here to be correct. I've gotten WAY to many very hurtful things said about me to be nice anymore, sorry.

Try to remember that this forum might be different than others you've been on. We try to be at least polite. This is a mature crowd here.

If you wish to study where rudeness might get you, check out what happened to Killtown. We tried to get along with him, but he just could not get the hang of the tone here.

I'm not saying that you have been rude, Ace. Just letting you know that this can be a home for anyone with different thoughts, beliefs and opinions, as long as we conduct ourselves in a civil fashion.

[acebaker]

Great. That's all I've ever wanted, everywhere that I have hung out. I want a fact-based and logic-based discussion. That's it. Someone called "Grounder Pounder" switched the subject from "Video Compositing on 9/11" to "Ace Baker needs to work on his marketing skills and be like a used car salesman".

Besides being off-subject, and a derailment, I found Grounder Pounder's remark to be inflammatory, and immature. Still, I do not ever wish to be accused of dodging questions. So I answered Grounder Pounder's remark, and I did so honestly.

Then what happened?

I was called out, by Ocean's Flow, and given a vague warning and a comparison to Killtown, of all "people". Why wouldn't Grounder Pounder be given a warning? That's rhetorical, really, I don't care. Please don't answer. At least not in this thread.

I would very, very much appreciate sticking to the evidence. I've spent a long time having people like Steven Jones promise to review and publish it. I really hope you guys are interested in facts. We'll see.

Please proceed with pointing out the falsity of my thesis that must be present if there were real plane crashes at the WTC.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

[Sanders]

Ace, I haven't read the whole thread, but from a quick perusal, you seem to have brought us the more solid elements and left out the weak or bogus arguments that usually get mixed in (with presentations like Sept. Clues) ... which is refreshing. I've lost interest in this topic somewhat, but I'll try to give the thread a more thorough reading.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[GroundPounder]

ace,
relax man...don't get your panties in a bunch..i tried humor, apparently it didn't take. i'm not knocking you, i am questioning you.

don't use words like perfectly...there isn't such a thing on earth.
facts are what exactly?
morgan reynolds' background is not physics if i recall. a professor named hoo-fatt (mechanical engineer)at the university of akron ohio used Finite Element Analysis to model the impact. the plane will penetrate the outer wall. now if you have a counter example i'd be happy to listen, otherwise you have conjecture and not fact.

edit: this is about point 18(?) only. can't address the others, cause frankly i don't know

This post has been edited by GroundPounder: Nov 14 2008, 08:34 PM

[acebaker]

ace,
relax man...don't get your panties in a bunch..i tried humor, apparently it didn't take. i'm not knocking you, i am questioning you.

don't use words like perfectly...there isn't such a thing on earth.
facts are what exactly?
morgan reynolds' background is not physics if i recall. a professor named hoo-fatt (mechanical engineer)at the university of akron ohio used Finite Element Analysis to model the impact. the plane will penetrate the outer wall. now if you have a counter example i'd be happy to listen, otherwise you have conjecture and not fact.

edit: this is about point 18(?) only. can't address the others, cause frankly i don't know

Hoo Fat, Purdue, MIT, and NIST all allege to have done computer modeling of one sort or another. What do they all have in common? None of them will release their data to the public!

I went to Purdue and interviewed Mete Sozen, and Voicu Popescu. On camera, Dr. Sozen promised to release to me his data. He never did, despite my repeated requests.

The Purdue Animation features some blatantly impossible things, such as a large piece of airplane that severs a floor, only to then have the floor be perfectly intact afterwards. Dr. Popescu had edited this part out of the version he showed me at Purdue that day.

NIST have never released their AnSys model either. I know why. It's because if they did, others could do things like simulate dropping the top 14 stories of a twin tower on to the lower 96. I would sure like to see that done.

Needless to say, I see NO EVIDENCE that any of these groups actually modeled anything. At such time as someone releases a model for REPLICATION, i.e. someone actually respects the scientific method, then I will give such a model my undivided attention. Until then, I say they are cartoons. Cartoons can be made to do anything.

This post has been edited by acebaker: Nov 14 2008, 11:06 PM