It was a bomb, not a second plane, who said a second plane...I saw it no second plane!

I was watching it live on TV and saw it happen in real time.

Stop with the stupid conspiracy theory crap.

 

I did not see, in person, Trump get indicted, even though I was in Florida at the time. I only saw it in TV. Hence, I don’t think it ever happened.

 

Sure you can look up the court records and have very strong evidence Trump was in fact indicted.

You cant do that with any live event you see on TV

What about video compositing?



What about all the errors that were made?

 

You can spam that video as much as you like, it doesn't alter the fact that this is one of the most insane things ever suggested.

There are no errors only very poor observations.

Posted by way of showing how absurd the planning meeting would have gone, surely, SURELY any one can see the major issues here?

1. Fly plane at big building.
2. All the above and so much more, all coordinated in such a way that "internet sleuths" like Ace Baker are the only ones "smart enough" to notice.

 

No one has come up with any poor observations.

 

Really? Well you "observed" the plane hitting "the building" sideways when you basically missed the impact completely. Your claim showed the plane nowhere near it.

And seriously, how can you even contemplate that there wasn't a plane. Read that comedy meeting above and explain exactly how anyone is going to be dumb enough to contemplate the ludicrous number of things to accomplish the most insane of all alternatives!

 

Bellows with laughter at "No one has come up with any poor observations":

September Clues Addendum DEBUNKED! (bitchute.com)
"In this analysis Eugene Debs studies claims made by Simon Shack in his September Clues – Addendum film, where he claims all of the live network television footage depicting the South Tower’s destruction is “fake”. Simon Shack bases his claims on the presence and movements of a helicopter (PAT) flying in the vicinity of the South Tower, prior to the South Tower’s destruction. I will also study Simon Shack’s methods which he uses to support his claims".

For detailed analysis read the two part article here links below:

September Clues - Addendum "Deceptions" - Part One
http://mark-conlon.blogspot.com/2017/07/september-clues-addendum-deceptions_5.html

September Clues - Addendum "Deceptions" - Part Two
http://mark-conlon.blogspot.com/2017/07/september-clues-addendum-deceptions_7.html

The whole deceptive and very absurd "September Clues", taken apart, idiotic observation by idiotic observation:
Microsoft Word - Debunking September Clues.doc (truthaction.org)

 

Re: Ace Baker: No one has come up with any poor observations.

 

You obviously haven't even researched this absurd plagiarism war between Simon Shack and Ace Baker. they basically use the same useless crap! That PDF details virtually everything and whoa, you just ignored the whole thing?!

Tearing apart the Ace Baker "nose-out" batshit.
VIDEO LINK - Debunking Ace Baker's "The Key" CGI & Video Fakery Plane Compositing Theory (bitchute.com)
"While I agree with this video analysis by Saultrain, that 'Luma Keying' compositing was impossible. I don't agree "real" planes were used or involved in the crashes at the WTC, Pentagon or Shanksville, although many eyewitnesses did see planes in the sky and crash, so this rules out CGI and video fakery. Some type of 'image projection' technology was used to broadcast an image of a plane in the sky. This hypothesis is the only explanation that can explain all the anomalies captured in the video evidence record of 'Flight 175' regarding the missing wings of the plane for 6 frames, the impossible crash physics and impossible speed the plane was travelling at in the videos.

Video Notes:
In the video entitled "07 The Key" (conspiracy theorist Collin Alexander, a.k.a., Ace Baker, claims that, "The key to solving 9/11 is something called a 'key'". The "key" he's referring to is a video editing tool called a "luma-key" which he alleges was used by the TV news media to insert a fake CGI plane into the live broadcasts of the twin tower attacks on 9/11. Despite his efforts, his ill-conceived theory ultimately fails, i.e., it can't replicate what is seen in the live footage of the 2nd plane impacting the WTC. I demonstrate in this presentation that the live footage itself contains a dead giveaway that a luma key could not have been used.

In my video, I paraphrase Ace's answer to the flame-over-nose problem which, as explained, proves his theory impossible. To be fair, below is a link to Alexander's "9/11 Research Blog" where he gives you his answer to the problem in his own words (yes, HE'S ADMITTING THAT I'M RIGHT ABOUT THE LUMA KEY FLAW). Also note that he admits he was wrong about no plane being in the wide shot. This Blog entry is from 2009. His latest YouTube upload of "07 The Key" was published May 29, 2012 (three years later). He's made no correction to the video, not even in the description.

Ace's Blog: http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2009/08/...
(What do you call someone who continues to propagate information--as truth--that he KNOWS to be false? I think most would agree that "liar" is an accurate label.)"

 

not an error

 

Thousands of New Yorkers saw AND heard the planes. Dozens of videos of the event. This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is just "Insanity Theory" - normal "911-truthers" are horrified at this batshit. They distance themselves from it, but unfortunately it never stops.

 

Did anyone watch the video?

How can anyone discuss a video they never watched?

 

Irony - yes everyone, go and watch the idiotic "no-plane" videos and ignore all the debunk videos!

Did everyone read this post? How can "anyone" debate the issue if you don't read rebuttal posts?

 

see post #35

So then you are claiming it is a 'dust puff' is that correct?

 

A chroma key is the same as a luma key, only uses color, instead of brightness and because the skies were totally blue on that day and because the fire shows up, they either used a chroma key or edited it in after rereleasing it to be aired, though not on the garbage videos the public had access to to at that time. What we see now was not what the original looked like.

It was a bright beautiful blue sky day the day of 911.

In either case a key is pulled.

Where is the bright beautiful blue sky in your 'unaltered'/'unmodified' video?

Apparently professional video equipment is so poor that they cant produce a natural looking blue sky.


So many problems with the plane theory left unanswered.

The only error Baker made was to cave in and say he was wrong, because he absolutely was not wrong, the video available to him at that time had no plane in it, and because the original was never posted timely they can edit in a steam roller.

So you are claiming that the nose out is a 'dust puff'? Is that correct?

 

oh the irony … you still haven’t watched the Coste video have you?

 

Who exactly is this imbecile "Ace Baker"?


Ace Baker and his phony "Key". Ironically, the haircut is real.

This blog details his insane observations and highlights his dishonesty:
Debunking the 9/11 No-Planes Theory: Conspiracy Theory FAIL: The 9/11 Video Fakery No-Planes Theory (The Lies of Ace Baker) (debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.com)
Contained in this post:


Lies from 07 The Key:
· Only three airplane videos are confirmed to have been shown live.
· In the footage of the second plane impact, the undamaged nose of the plane can be seen exiting the opposite side of the tower.
· The live FOX Chopper5 video contains an editing mistake which reveals that a fake CGI airplane was added to the live video feed.
· There is no plane in the wide shot in the Chopper5 video prior to the camera zooming-in as the chopper approaches the towers.
· The Hezarkhani footage shows a big gaping hole that appeared after the fuel explosion and is larger than the initial impact damage area.
· There are contradicting explosion "puff balls" between the Fairbanks and Hezarkhani videos.
· All existing 9/11 airplane videos have reduced picture quality in order to "hide the messy fingerprints of the compositing process".
Lies from 06 What planes?
· There were very few eyewitnesses, and in the FDNY and EMT accounts, there's only one person who saw the plane, heard it, and watched it crash.
· There was no airplane debris below the impacts.
· The impact of the 2nd plane through the South Tower exhibits impossible, "cartoon physics" that violate Newton's laws.
· When the FOX Chopper5 video is stabilized, the plane's motion becomes jittery, proving that it's an inserted animation.
· Purdue University will not release their data used in their animated computer simulation of the plane impacting the North Tower.

 

Ibid.
Only THREE 9/11 airplane videos are confirmed to have been shown LIVE. - From 07 The Key (at 3:30).
FALSE. In fact, this claim is simply an absolute lie. There were at least seven national and/or local (or locally affiliated) news stations broadcasting LIVE coverage on the morning of 9/11/2001, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, WB11, and local NY1. six of those stations captured the second plane while broadcasting live that morning. and one of those networks, CBS captured the plane with two different live cameras while switching.

This means that seven different news cameras captured the plane while broadcasting LIVE, not "three" as Ace claims.

So why does Ace baker claim that only three are confirmed to have been shown live? What he means is that only three video clips have been confirmed to have been shown live by him, because only three of the live clips will work with his fake airplane/composite theory.

Ace asserts that the three live clips "just so happen" to have the necessary attributes which would make live video compositing possible and allow the insertion of a fake, computer animated, airplane into the live video feeds. Those necessary attributes are:

1. High contrast between tower and sky.
2. "Steady camera" with no panning, tilting, or zooming.
3. Airplane path is across sky only.
4. Airplane disappears across straight vertical edge.
5. Impact wall is hidden.
6. No shadows required.

Ace states that, "Absent any one of these, inserting a fake airplane LIVE, in real time, becomes impossible".

He then asks, "What are the odds that this occurred by chance?" It becomes clear how ridiculous this question is, when you take the time to discover that Ace cherry-picked the clips that he says are "confirmed to have been shown live". So the odds are 100% because he arbitrarily chose which clips are "real", ignoring everything else.

Below are clips from the three LIVE broadcasts which, according to Ace, "are confirmed to have been shown live" and allegedly contain all of the necessary attributes for live compositing:

ABC:
YouTube: (national broadcast)

• Notice that, despite Ace's assertion that this shot was "put together nicely", it also clearly shows the alleged "nose-out" mistake:

• Did the "perps" make the same composting error twice? Or is the alleged "nose-out" showing something real?

 

yes is does, glad you established that point.

Nope one error, several views.
I can explain how video compositing works if you like?

Only if you believe that planes can fly through steel buildings.

 

Ignoring the bare-assertion noise: Ibid.
WB11 (Local WPIX):
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCgE60nfdxw


FOX Chopper5 (local WNYW):
YouTube:
(full broadcast)




Note: Several replays of the Chopper5 footage aired on FOX throughout the day on 9/11, footage Ace claims was "flushed and never seen again".
See it here and here at 14:45, 32:10, 52:24, and 1:14:10. Seems they didn't mind replaying their self-incriminating "mistake" over and over. Notice that ONLY the WB11 clip was shot with a stable camera. The others were filmed using chopper-mounted cameras which were never truly "steady". So while there may not be any intentional "panning, tilting, or zooming" at the moment of impact, the towers are never stationary within the frame. This makes these shots unusable for live compositing, and Ace ignores not only the potential problems, but the real ones as well, such as how the plane hits the building at exactly the correct floors while the towers are drifting in the frame.

 

Oh? How were the other cams mounted, in hand?

Yes Ace explains that is how they ****ed up, that is why you see pinochios nose popping out of the building lol Glad you agree.

 

AFAIK all were fixed to the choppers, only WB11 was hovering with very little noticeable motion. The rest though, clearly moving. You can't overlay a fixed video onto a moving video shot - game over.

/Thread

 

Im not saue what your trying to say here? What point are you trying to make? That we are only supposed to see the nose in the moving choppers?

ok so then your comment about cams fixed to chopper was meaningless, gotcha

huh? what is that supposed to mean?

 

You're not sure and that was your guess? Hilarious. The point is as straight forward as you can get. One chopper captured the plane impact with virtually no movement from it. The rest didn't. They were all moving.

Try not to deceptively change what I said. The BLOG quote said all but one were moving. It implied unintentionally that the camera was fixed differently. It's very simple English, explained in very easy to understand terms. They were all fixed, only one shot had the chopper absolutely stationary.

Well you suggested you knew how compositing was done, clearly that isn't the case. If the main video shows the object to be struck (the building) moving within every frame, if you overlay a pre-made fake plane on top it won't hit where it should.

Oh, unless you not only worked out in advance (ridiculous!) where the chopper was going to be, its exact elevation(insanely ridiculous!), the direction it would be moving and by how much. And the pilot needed to be in on it.

What a crock of crap!

 

Once again: This blog details his insane observations and highlights his dishonesty:
Debunking the 9/11 No-Planes Theory: Conspiracy Theory FAIL: The 9/11 Video Fakery No-Planes Theory (The Lies of Ace Baker) (debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.com)
Below are the airplane clips that ACE ignores which were also broadcast LIVE on 9/11:

CBS LIVE:
(national broadcast)

(CBS2 NY local broadcast)

• Notice that both of these live camera shots do not meet the necessary criteria for live compositing, because there is not high contrast between tower and sky. This is why Ace does not include them in the "confirmed to have been shown live" category even though there is absolutely no evidence that they were not shown live.

• Does Ace believe that CBS was not covering the WTC attacks live? Of course they were. What then does he believe they were broadcasting at the time of the second strike? Can he provide that for us? Can he provide ANY proof that this clip was not shown live? Of course he can't. If he could he would, so he simply ignores it.

NBC LIVE:
YouTube:
(local broadcast):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjUUSbWk60M
(national broadcast):

(CNBC):

(RAW chopper footage):


9-11LIVE NBC Local NY Broadcast of 2nd Airplane Strike

(LIVE Chopper4 close-up. Yes, it's a plane.)

• Notice that this clip fails to meet three criteria for live compositing, including:
  • 1. NO high contrast between tower and sky.
  • 2. NOT a "steady camera" with no panning, tilting, or zooming (it's another chopper camera that's moving AND zooming with the plane in view).
  • 3. Airplane path is NOT across sky only.

• Again, why does Ace ignore this footage? There is NO reason to believe the NBC chopper footage was not broadcast live. The reason he ignores it is because it doesn't work with his contrived luma-key/composite theory.

NY1 Local LIVE:
YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y-R4CGVtIg

• This live clip would not work with Ace's theory, again, because there's not enough contrast between tower and sky.

• This clip, in full resolution format, has the longest view of the plane--25 seconds. For more info on this clip and ALL existing 9/11 airplane videos go to: http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit.html