The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites By Ace Baker, Wiki-site by Ace Baker Options

[Shallel]

Would love to see some of you professionals' comment on this treatise.
Blessings, Shallel

Abstract - http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page

I bring 22 data sets to test two competing hypotheses:
The real airplane hypothesis – A real Boeing 767 airplane flew into WTC2 on 9/11.
The video composite hypothesis – The jet crash was faked by inserting airplane images into otherwise authentic video footage.
Each data set is considered under both hypotheses. I explore every explanation that has been offered by supporters of the real airplane. I apply the principles of video compositing, of Newtonian Physics, of logic, and of common sense.
The FOX “Chopper 5” and CNN “Ghostplane” videos are both shown to have multiple observable features irreconcilable with reality, yet perfectly consistent with video compositing. For instance, Chopper 5 is missing an airplane in its first 5 seconds. The airplane that finally does appear has unstable motion. The nose of the airplane image was accidentally allowed to pop out from the back of the tower, and it’s missing a shadow. The wings of CNN Ghostplane pass through the wall of the tower, yet no damage is observed. There’s a puffball that appears in different places in different videos. Each one of these is strictly impossible in reality. Each one of these is a commonplace problem in the world of video compositing.
Having proven compositing on Chopper 5 and Ghostplane, a distinction is made between the compositing techniques employed on live, real-time videos, and those that allow time for editing. By understanding the requirements and limitations of live compositing, I rule out the possibility of any flying object being present.All 9/11 airplane videos are thus proven to be video composites. Each one has had an airplane image inserted into what is otherwise real footage. A few of the edited shots also required added puffballs and flame to help cover up obvious editing, and attempt to explain away the nose-out blooper.
3 different videos feature a blackout within ¼ second of one another. Suspicious editing abounds. Broadcast quality videos are unavailable at any price. Chopper 5 was never replayed. Audio has been tampered with. Evident is a very guilty mind on the part of the news networks.
Not intimidated, I go further to the next obvious conclusion, that the so-called “mainstream media” is a willing propaganda organ of the U.S. government, complicit in mass murder on 9/11.I coin the term “govern-media”.As was the case with the founders of the United States, it is my unalienable right and moral duty to call for the abolishment of the government. Have a nice day.

[amazed!]

Good luck! Maybe Julian Assange can assist you on abolishing the US government.

[Shallel]

Good luck! Maybe Julian Assange can assist you on abolishing the US government.

That's why I love this site, it's so easy to make friends here!

[23investigator]

Would love to see some of you professionals' comment on this treatise.
Blessings, Shallel

Abstract - http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page

I bring 22 data sets to test two competing hypotheses:
The real airplane hypothesis – A real Boeing 767 airplane flew into WTC2 on 9/11.
The video composite hypothesis – The jet crash was faked by inserting airplane images into otherwise authentic video footage.
Each data set is considered under both hypotheses. I explore every explanation that has been offered by supporters of the real airplane. I apply the principles of video compositing, of Newtonian Physics, of logic, and of common sense.
The FOX “Chopper 5” and CNN “Ghostplane” videos are both shown to have multiple observable features irreconcilable with reality, yet perfectly consistent with video compositing. For instance, Chopper 5 is missing an airplane in its first 5 seconds. The airplane that finally does appear has unstable motion. The nose of the airplane image was accidentally allowed to pop out from the back of the tower, and it’s missing a shadow. The wings of CNN Ghostplane pass through the wall of the tower, yet no damage is observed. There’s a puffball that appears in different places in different videos. Each one of these is strictly impossible in reality. Each one of these is a commonplace problem in the world of video compositing.
Having proven compositing on Chopper 5 and Ghostplane, a distinction is made between the compositing techniques employed on live, real-time videos, and those that allow time for editing. By understanding the requirements and limitations of live compositing, I rule out the possibility of any flying object being present.All 9/11 airplane videos are thus proven to be video composites. Each one has had an airplane image inserted into what is otherwise real footage. A few of the edited shots also required added puffballs and flame to help cover up obvious editing, and attempt to explain away the nose-out blooper.
3 different videos feature a blackout within ¼ second of one another. Suspicious editing abounds. Broadcast quality videos are unavailable at any price. Chopper 5 was never replayed. Audio has been tampered with. Evident is a very guilty mind on the part of the news networks.
Not intimidated, I go further to the next obvious conclusion, that the so-called “mainstream media” is a willing propaganda organ of the U.S. government, complicit in mass murder on 9/11.I coin the term “govern-media”.As was the case with the founders of the United States, it is my unalienable right and moral duty to call for the abolishment of the government. Have a nice day.

Shallel

There are lots of professionals out there, and if they were to argue about what this person has brought forward, it would be a concern as to whether they were 'professional' or not.
As we all know, people are entitled to have their own view over anything -and this should never change-
though clearly there are many who would wish to bring us under their "singular view" of what is best for us -and even ""better"" for them.

Lets invite the true professionals to have a look at the only two -videos- on what started this terrible travesty -- the impact of an aircraft, on the North Tower.
We can all be reasonably assured that some type of aircraft did impact the North Tower. Whether the actual aircraft caused the devastating explosion to all those resident in the 'tower' is open to very big question. With of course, the effect of the nature of the explosive that caused that explosion, having a much broader effect over the "General Population of Manhattan", and for that matter the result of the South Tower too, and the people in the immediate vicinity, and perhaps broader, of the Pentagon Building.

The first problem to any professional in respect to the North Tower, will be to locate any aircraft in the general smudging applied to both video. The 'french' video does leave some openings. The second one from some distance away, its author not even deserving a mention, considering what they have tolerated to the integrity of the original image, -- the 'french' -- in reality being no better, is a real challenge to extract any profile, but if the dimension of the smudging is considered, relative to the size of the two towers, not much more needs to be considered. A Boeing 767 is a big aircraft the fueslage being quite long, --but the smudge isn't'.

Of course there is one positive way of dealing with these questions, whether 'professional' or 'lay' like most of us.

DEMAND THE ORIGINAL RUNNING FOOTAGE.

[BADBURD]

Has it ever accured to anyone that the media and the government are one in the same? It sure is looking that way to me. I think it's obvious they were never the watch dogs of the government. IMO

[onesliceshort]

Has it ever accured to anyone that the media and the government are one in the same? It sure is looking that way to me. I think it's obvious they were never the watch dogs of the government. IMO

I see no difference at all. If the day ever comes when these pèople are fully exposed, the mainstream media should be in shackles right behind them.

[amazed!]

I hereby volunteer to be the executioner, after a proper trial. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pilotfly.gif)

[Tamborine man]

I hereby volunteer to be the executioner, after a proper trial. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pilotfly.gif)

And i have never been able to detect any difference between the executioner

and the executed guilty of his or her crime.

This is probably just a Scandinavian thing, as i'm sure good old george w. bush

is looked upon with much veneration by billions of Americans and people from

other nations for his devoted services to the executioner profession, not only in

his capacity as governor of Texas, but also as president of USA.

Against mighty American opinion, they labour in vain who try to oppose this

executioner madness going on in this and other countries, so i don't expect

ever to be given an explanation to wherein this difference lays!

Cheers

[Obwon]

Found this video from:
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/07/air-v...aper-video.html

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


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

It's short for those with small bandwidth
(requesting Moderator embeding?) TIA.

Obwon

[amazed!]

TM

Sorry I missed your reply all these months.

No difference between the executioner and the executed? Well, I guess in the broadest sense, you're right. Both are humans, true enough.

But of course one lives on while the other dies.

But that raises the discussion about punishment--should people be punished for crimes against others?

I appreciate the Scandinavian perspective, but my thoughts are that IF a person harms another, THEN society has the right to punish him.

And then of course the question of whether capital punishment is ever legal or appropriate?

[Tamborine man]

TM

Sorry I missed your reply all these months.

No difference between the executioner and the executed? Well, I guess in the broadest sense, you're right. Both are humans, true enough.

But of course one lives on while the other dies.

But that raises the discussion about punishment--should people be punished for crimes against others?

I appreciate the Scandinavian perspective, but my thoughts are that IF a person harms another, THEN society has the right to punish him.

And then of course the question of whether capital punishment is ever legal or appropriate?

No worries mate.

Yes, both are 'humans', and which is probably the most important part in the whole scheme of things,

for in reality both lives on.

In the main a person is now executed because he or she has taken the life of another, so in effect it's

the old doctrine of "an eye for an eye" that in our case is being applied as punishment.

In simple terms, this boils down to: "When you take the life of somebody you're braking the law, and

is therefore a very bad person. We on the other hand, following the law and taking your life in return,

are therefore very good persons. We're not only doing society a sterling service", but also ourselves."

......But are they?

Contrast the above with the following:

"Prepare your laws as though you yourselves should be judged by each and every statute, for then will
your laws be just."

"Do not do to others, what you do not wish they should do to you."

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the
law of the prophets."

"In one's daily life a human being ought to treat all creations as he or she would like to be treated.
In happiness and suffering, in joy and sorrow, we ought to consider all beings, as we consider our
own self, and ought therefore to refrain from inflicting pain to others, as would appear undesirable
to us if it be inflicted upon ourselves."

"Abolish all condemning unto death; for no human being has the right to take the life of another, no matter
how many crimes have been committed. Do not prepare laws that compel your brethren to murder and to
slay one another in warfare; for all this is of evil! Let all bearing of arms be of the free will, until all nations
and lands upon the earth are united in a lasting, unbreakable pact of peace."

"As you sow, so you shall reap."

"There is one provision under the law of retribution which no one can escape whether the transgressor's
spiritual self is a human spirit, one of the Youngest or one of the Eldest. However, it is not applied to the
very youngest of human spirits until they are able on this point to respond to their conscience. The statute
referred to is the provision which states that all who kill a person or who in some way cause the death of
their fellow human beings must in coming incarnations save as many people from sudden death as they
have killed or caused to die."

"Persons who during their existence as earthly rulers, commanders or leaders of the people are indirectly
responsible for the loss of thousands of human lives during wars and uprisings or through death sentence
can expiate the guilt of the many abruptly terminated human lives by:
1) saving a large number of people from some impending catastrophe in various subsequent incarnations,
such as through resolute action averting, for example, a train. ship, mine or fire disaster; or
2) as inventors in the service of mankind by bringing safety to otherwise dangerous occupations: or
3) as scientists by finding means for the effective prevention or control of one or more of the diseases that
in so many ways afflict mankind. God himself ensures through this provision that a proper balance is
maintained between the human lives that are lost and those that in compensation are to be saved from
premature or painful death.
The two last named methods of atonement can only be employed in respect of the Youngest and partly in
respect of the Eldest, since human spirits clearly do not possess sufficient spiritual powers to act as
inventors or scientists in life on Earth."


Hope this post is forgiven by the OP, as it is not my purpose to derail this thread at all.

If deemed necessary, i would be happy to continue expanding further on this subject, but in another

more appropriate thread!

Cheers

[amazed!]

Righto!

[Tamborine man]

Righto!

Ditto!