Additional evidence for no planes

[Ace Baker]

The recent documentary on History Channel "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Fact or Fiction?" was a standard media hit piece on the truth movement. The obvious strategy was to have a truther make a "conspiracy claim", then bring on the "expert" to set us straight. Clearly the idea was to make the truth movement seem as weak and foolish as possible.

Alex Jones, Steven Jones, the Loose Change Boys, Webster Tarpley, David Ray Griffin were all there.

Conspicuously absent were Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and any mention of no planes or exotic weapons.

If there really were planes, and 'no plane theory' is really so far out, then the producers would have presented it, and had their guys knock it down. The fact that they completely ignored it speaks volumes to me.

[telecasterisation]

[Rowan Berkeley]

I do wish people would refrain from bundling 'no planes' and 'space beams' as one issue.

p.s. genghis has posted a most intemperate video rant against dylan avery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIcappm7czc
genghis has not devoted sufficient attention in my view to gimmicking up his presentation - he just sits in his car and talks to camera.

[egw]

[Rowan Berkeley]

I have never been a member of the Loose Change forums, but I can well believe they are policed by ferocious watchdogs.

[chek]

[TmcMistress]

[Rowan Berkeley]

is it too much to ask that they should be debunked separately??

[Ace Baker]

No Planes and Exotic Weapons are certainly two separate issues, with possible overlap. For example, perhaps exotic weapons were used to blow the plane shaped holes in the towers.

I mentioned them both in the OP, because they were both conspicuously absent from the History Channel hit piece. Clearly, the intent of the program was to discredit the truth movement. Clearly it was produced by expert documentarians with a strong agenda.

Why would they leave out 'no planes' and/or why would they leave out 'exotic weapons'? If those are so easily debunked, why would they not put Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds on, then have their guys debunk them, the way they did to Avery, Griffin, Jones, Jones, Tarpley and the rest?

Explain it to me, please. I didn't see the recent BBC hit piece, but I suspect it was much the same. Were 'no planes' and/or 'exotic weapons' in that on either? Why not?

If you were making a hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement, what would you include? Why?

[TmcMistress]

[gruts]

sadly, the "ignore them and they'll go away" principle won't work against such a well organised disinfo campaign, but it's funny how low they have to sink to find any degree of validation for their "theories", given the lack of real evidence for what they're claiming.

a few weeks ago when the New York Post ran a story about how ellen mariani was being harassed via the "911 researchers" website and referred to them as the "911 skeptics' lunatic fringe", one poster on here was excitedly claiming that being discussed in this way by a tabloid newspaper was a major breakthrough for NPT.

similarly when Eric Salter showed that Ace Baker's chopper 5 study was a worthless pile of nonsense, the very fact that he had taken the trouble to do so was apparently a sign that Ace must be on to something....

so when a History Channel hitpiece fails to mention NPT it's not suprising that this is interpreted - rather desperately - as somehow being "additional evidence" for NPT. it's just like David Icke saying "I have stated in public that Tony Blair is a shape-shifting lizard and he didn't sue me so it proves that I must be right!".

illogical thinking + irrational bias = bs

[Ace Baker]

Gruts, please do the following very simple exercise. Download the Chopper 5 video clip, and step through frame by frame. Pay attention to the twin towers, and their apparent motion. See if you agree with me that between some frames they move significantly, between other they move a little, and between others they move hardly at all.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/summaryimages/fox11secondhitexce rpt.mov


After you confirm this scientific observation, I'll explain why this is significant to understanding why Eric Salter's piece is the unscientific one. While you're at it, perhaps you can think of answers to these questions:

Why has Eric Salter concealed his stabilization data from us?
Why has Eric Salter failed to provide control cases to support his margin of error?

Thanks.

[Rowan Berkeley]

Ace, don't you have a nose-out clip that shows the city-scape by way of background? Isn't it THAT we should be watching the towers against? Your clip has only a background of sky, AFAICS.

[gruts]

Ace - the answers to your questions have already been provided by eric salter....

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/Fox5analysis.html#rebuttal2

so why bother asking them?

by the way - I have a theory that both of the WTC towers were pulverised by a huge, invisible holographic banana. my extensive research has confirmed that all the evidence supports this theory, but the History Channel didn't mention it - so it must be true. I also emailed NIST about my theory and they haven't responded, which speaks volumes about how scared they are of the fact that I have uncovered THE smoking gun of 9/11.

if this theory continues to be ignored I will take it as conclusive proof that an ExoTech Stealth Banana was used....

[Ace Baker]

No, Salter did not answer my questions yet. In an email, he has said he has "no problem" honoring my requests, but as yet has not.

He asks us to believe the Chopper 5 shot was perfectly stable, and that the camera drifted steadily to the left, and that stabilizing the shot has no effect on the apparent motion of the plane.

My data clearly show otherwise.

Salter does not give his stabilization data, so we cannot test his assertions. He claims a particular margin of error, but does not supply any control cases to back it up.

Have you downloaded the clip at stepped through it for yourself yet?

Please, I'm looking for an honest answer to a simple question:

In Chopper 5, is the apparent motion of the twin towers constant, or does it vary?

It will take less than 5 minutes to do this exercise.

[Rowan Berkeley]

Ace, I know I already said this on the other thread devoted to this topic , but I want to know : what is your explanation of the OTHER "nose-out" films, the ones taken from a rooftop or rooftops to the north-east?

Do you believe that, because the chopper shot error had occurred and produced an illusory "nose-out", the decision was made to produce lots MORE "nose-out" films, to prevent people thinking about video fakery?

[Ace Baker]

In a word Rowan, yes. Most of the 9/11 videos emerged after 9/11, so there was plenty of time to modify them as needed. Knowing full well about the nose-out mistake, yes, they wanted to make them agree as well as possible.

There are in fact videos which ought to show the nose out, but do not.

There is a video which shows the nose-out from the opposite side, and it looks like a missile-nose. Clearly nothing that size actually exited the building, because there is no exit hole.

Fred has a great new video about the missing building in Ghostplane.

It's must see.

http://www.livevideo.com/bsregistration

[Rowan Berkeley]

But once you get to that point, it becomes equally logical to speculate that ALL the videos are DELIBERATELY UNCONVINCING FAKES, created just to waste our time and make us look like lunatics.

[Ace Baker]

Except in the case of the live videos, for which there was very little time to alter them. It is logical to assume that the live videos have less alteration, and simpler kinds of alteration, than those which emerged much later.

[John White]

[Micpsi]

Castles in the air are being built on the as-flimsy-as-wet toilet-tissue assumption that video footage displaying apparent anomalies is genuine. Six years later, the sad truth is: NO video footage can be trusted any more as the real McCoy because no one can be sure that it has not been tampered with by disinfo agents beavering away to keep us chasing our tails instead of studying real evidence of a conspiracy. That is why no one ought to take seriously any inference from such evidence of uncertain provenance. Jim Fetzer ought to know better, having discredited the Magruder film of the JFK assassination. But no, he falls for the latest flavor of the month in the 9/11 world by not even stopping to question whether the footage showing anomalies is genuine or has been deliberately altered to make people viewing it ask the wrong questions and then answer them with ludicrously false answers that can only discredit the 9/11 movement - which is its intention, of course. As the authenticity of such film cannot be checked with certainty, all we have here is an argument over either bad data (poor-resolution, highly compressed video files that get misinterpreted) or data whose genuineness we cannot be sure about. Sorry, no-planers, but we don't need it. We already have far superior evidence of a conspiracy on 9/11.