No-planers: I challenge you to explain how all the videos and photos....

Seriously now, how many people actually reported that they spotted the alleged "FLT175"
airliner, positively identified it as an airliner, before it crashed into the south wall of the south tower? and of these, how many are reliable, that is able to discern a missile from an airliner?

 

well I have not seen any on the net that show the actual impact that are not grossly (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up fakes. when some of these people ask how could they pull it off, well they didnt LOL

I dont think anyone took up his offer. I do know he sent letters to everyone who claimed to have an original including the tv stations and nada. Hell they would be loony not to sell him a copy of what is already public for 100g LOL

Anyone can provide the video, however this is the note he wrote to the stations. Nothing special.

 

well you should care because we dont believe you because you cant prove its twu!

there you go talk to ace, here is his email: http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2009/02/reward-for-911-airplane-home-recordings.html

 

Can't support your claim, huh? If you could you wouldn't be wasting time trying to claim I need you to believe me. How sad.

A$$ Baker is just, an a$$ He bases his entire claim on one video that HE asserts proves his point when he knows full well, he has been debunked.

Maybe he should commit suicide on air again.


So, you can't offer up an explanation on how all those videos were faked? Then you done trying to derail the thread?

 

but thats just bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and you know it.



dont need to be a rocket scientist to see this is all computer generated, especially when they (*)(*)(*)(*) it up as badly as they did in the only impact videos that exist. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOL

OOOPSIE!

 

one thing that I see, is
( and the TV people should write back & explain if this is the case )
the request for a video includes the requirement that it be 720 X 486
if the real video just happens to be 700 X 400 this may or may not be
usable, but my point is that if the TV station has a video that doesn't
perfectly match up with the initial requirement(s), would they bother to
write back and explain what they have and see what can be done?

 

he said that for that specific station because that is the format for kia simonsons camara specifically.

All you need to get money is a first quality VRC recording of the event and he will pay a nice fee for that as well.

but the irony is that no one has come forward, despite all these debunkers claiming they saw a plane LOL Maybe none of the debunkers could afford video cams I dunno.

you can have an army of people stand in front of a judge and claim they saw a plane go in but when the material evidence shows otherwise like this, the judge will just blow them off as quacks.

there are only 3 videos that claim to be impact videos and one is so bad that no one even bothers posting it and the other is abc and hezerkani and they are all easily shown to be fake because of all the errors they made.

what you see pointed out is masking errors, there are several other things wrong with them but debunkers have to stoop to arguing black is white to dodge this one. (and I am sure they will at some point)

 

No, you just have to know what you're talking about. You don't.

 

you assert opinion,
the fact is that an airliner crash as shown in the video can have
if the alleged starting speed is 590 mph the max slow down
possible & not perceivable on the video is 125 mph, and at that
the g force on deceleration would have to be 28 gs and you believe
that an aircraft ( that is a commercial airliner ) would keep its shape
under that sort of stress?

 

It didn't.
The aircraft in question and the people within were destroyed.

 

Now there is simply a wonderful reference to suicide there. The compassion is just overflowing, I must say.

Ace Baker (and I haven't even heard of him until now) is only ONE soul that believes (apparently) that something is smelly with 9-11. If you took the basic context of what MANY people believe about 9-11, and weigh it cumulatively against WHAT THEY SAY happened (that being the 'official' version of events), then you SHOULD be able to easily see that it just doesn't add up.

 

Then perhaps you should read about A$$ Baker before you post or (*)(*)(*)(*).

No, he is ONE who doesn't understand the claims he is making based on his limited knowledge of video editing.

 

I guess I'll have to go back and review my own footage of the event. It is pretty muddy video as presented here, no doubt.

 

The alleged ONE person, is joined by MANY others that include but
not limited to Dr. Bowman, Dr. Reynolds, John Lear,
and others too numerous to include here. .........
The fact is that there is something VERY wrong with the official story.
That much is abundantly clear. Can U say FALSE FLAG ATTACK?

 

My mistake. I meant to say 'ISN'T the only one'. My apologies and no offense Bob.

 

Oh ..... & thanks for the note. I should have seen, from context what was going on.

 

Hi. I'm new here, but thought I'd chime in. I've researched that "07 The Key" video. I hate to tell you, but t's full of false claims and outright lies. Have you tried verifying the claims he makes?

 

Do you deny that the video of "FLT175" penetrating the south wall of the south tower, is a fantasy, at no time did the media show a video of a real aircraft crash, the total penetration of the WTC wall(s) by "FLT11" & "FLT175" = FRAUD.
aircraft crashing into a wall constructed as was the WTC would simply not do what was alleged to have been done. I have attempted to show that the wing tips of the alleged airliners would not have made the gash as shown in the pictures of both towers, and the debunkers on this forum simply refuse to even examine the evidence.

I invite you to point out specifics as to what
you believe are flaws in the Ace Baker video.

anyhow, welcome to the discussion.

 

No problem. Check out the blog entry I wrote dealing with the subject. I addressed many of the "key" lies there:
http://debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-lies-of-ace-baker.html

 

in rebuttal
may I offer: http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/360853-re-no-planes.html

is this an argument from incredulity?

Click on the image to make it larger.

 

The argument is irrelevant, because the wing tips didn't penetrate the steel, and the "official story" doesn't say they did. Take a look:
https://www.filesanywhere.com/FS/M.aspx?v=8c6b64895e97afbda8a3
https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8b6d678659647477b06e

 

so it doesn't matter
that is the counting of the 40" spaced box columns and
noting that you can account for the distance wing tip to wing tip in the gash.

 

Not only do No-Planers have to prove how all the photos and videos were faked, they have to prove when and by whom.

....that's if they wish to have any integrity.

- - - Updated - - -

evidence that all of the videos were hacked?

 

so, every one of these videos is a fake?

[video=youtube;PMQWzdc175A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A[/video]

prove it

 

The NIST report is very clear about the impact holes, where the planes lined-up, and the resulting damage. The wing-tips did not sever the steel columns: