Thursday, November 27, 2008

Ace Baker Video Composite Thread

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15544



Pilots For 9/11 Truth Pilots For 9/11 Truth Portal Forum Rules Help Search Members Calendar



Guests Please Register For Full Forum Access. Thank You.
(you must be logged in to post and view entire forum)

Logged in as: acebaker ( Log Out )
My Controls · View New Posts · My Assistant · My Friends · 1 New Messages
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Research > Alternative Theories
7 Pages < 1 2 3 4 > »
Ace Baker - Video Composite Theory Set, merged threads
Options
acebaker
Nov 14 2008, 11:05 AM
Post #21


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



@Carl Bank:

You're wrong. The Naudet Bros shot BOTH of the alleged airplane hits, both featured in the DVD "9/11: Filmmakers Commemorative Edition". The edit to which I draw attention is indeed from Naudet #2. It features a glimpse of the "nose out" event.

Please review your statement and correct it.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

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



GroundPounder
Nov 14 2008, 01:28 PM
Post #22


Private Pilot


Group: Private Pilot
Posts: 176
Joined: 13-December 06
Member No.: 315



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
Nov 14 2008, 01:44 PM
Post #23


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



"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
Nov 14 2008, 02:14 PM
Post #24


Private Pilot


Group: Private Pilot
Posts: 176
Joined: 13-December 06
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 12 2008, 03:44 PM)
"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.



Turbofan
Nov 14 2008, 02:53 PM
Post #25


Active Pilot


Group: Administrator
Posts: 529
Joined: 21-November 07
From: Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 2,501



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?



acebaker
Nov 14 2008, 02:55 PM
Post #26


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



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
Nov 14 2008, 03:35 PM
Post #27


Private Pilot


Group: Private Pilot
Posts: 176
Joined: 13-December 06
Member No.: 315



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
Nov 14 2008, 03:46 PM
Post #28


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988





QUOTE (Turbofan @ Nov 14 2008, 02:53 PM)
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
Nov 14 2008, 03:55 PM
Post #29


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 14 2008, 03:35 PM)
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
Nov 14 2008, 03:57 PM
Post #30


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



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
Nov 14 2008, 04:36 PM
Post #31


Private Pilot


Group: Private Pilot
Posts: 176
Joined: 13-December 06
Member No.: 315



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.

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?



Oceans Flow
Nov 14 2008, 04:47 PM
Post #32


Extreme Pilot


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,704
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 13 2008, 08:04 PM)
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?


--------------------
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. “But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism.” So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown? “You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business,” he says. “As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser.” ~ The National UAE 11/06/08



Turbofan
Nov 14 2008, 04:47 PM
Post #33


Active Pilot


Group: Administrator
Posts: 529
Joined: 21-November 07
From: Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 2,501



I believe he (Ace) is referring to the air current disruption which occurs when a fast moving object travels through air.

You may have seen this effect when a car speeds though a pile of leaves, or when you run past a set of window curtains.
The leaves will continue to spiral and 'chase' the car for several moments after. They are essentially moving into a low
pressure area.

If the object passing into the towers impacted with such speeds, the eddy currents/vortex would have remained for quite some
time and produced a strong pressure preventing the smoke ball from rising and expanding in such a smooth manner.

It's puzzling to come to terms with some of this stuff I'll admit.

It would follow then, the video of the Firemen in the middle of street looking up toward the tower before the first impact
were coached/actors?

The lady featured in Dave VonKleist's documentary stating, "that was not American Airlines", what might she be referring to?

Thanks for your insight.



GroundPounder
Nov 14 2008, 04:58 PM
Post #34


Private Pilot


Group: Private Pilot
Posts: 176
Joined: 13-December 06
Member No.: 315



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

definitely an inside job...



INP
Nov 14 2008, 04:58 PM
Post #35


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 22
Joined: 14-September 07
From: Banana Republic of Germany
Member No.: 2,136



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.



beatles64
Nov 14 2008, 05:10 PM
Post #36


Private Pilot


Group: Private Pilot
Posts: 224
Joined: 20-January 08
Member No.: 2,660



QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Nov 12 2008, 11:27 AM)
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


--------------------
"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives.
I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and
I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that.
That's what's insane about it."

- John Lennon



acebaker
Nov 14 2008, 06:02 PM
Post #37


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



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.







QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 14 2008, 04:36 PM)
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.

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
Nov 14 2008, 06:08 PM
Post #38


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (INP @ Nov 14 2008, 04:58 PM)
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.

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.





Oceans Flow
Nov 14 2008, 06:13 PM
Post #39


Extreme Pilot


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,704
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 14 2008, 02:02 PM)
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.


--------------------
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. “But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism.” So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown? “You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business,” he says. “As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser.” ~ The National UAE 11/06/08



acebaker
Nov 14 2008, 07:24 PM
Post #40


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



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









« Next Oldest · Alternative Theories · Next Newest »


7 Pages < 1 2 3 4 > »

1 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: acebaker



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2008 - 03:35 AM



All views expressed in this forum are not necessarily the views of pilotsfor911truth.org

Powered By IP.Board 2.3.5 © 2008 IPS, Inc.


Pilots For 9/11 Truth Pilots For 9/11 Truth Portal Forum Rules Help Search Members Calendar



Guests Please Register For Full Forum Access. Thank You.
(you must be logged in to post and view entire forum)

Logged in as: acebaker ( Log Out )
My Controls · View New Posts · My Assistant · My Friends · 1 New Messages
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Research > Alternative Theories
7 Pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > »
Ace Baker - Video Composite Theory Set, merged threads
Options
Sanders
Nov 14 2008, 07:38 PM
Post #41


Extreme Pilot


Group: Administrator
Posts: 5,809
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



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.




--------------------
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right." - Benjamin Franklin



GroundPounder
Nov 14 2008, 08:27 PM
Post #42


Private Pilot


Group: Private Pilot
Posts: 176
Joined: 13-December 06
Member No.: 315



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
Nov 14 2008, 10:23 PM
Post #43


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 14 2008, 08:27 PM)
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



acebaker
Nov 14 2008, 10:42 PM
Post #44


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



And, of course, the alleged computer modeling does not directly apply to my thesis. Hypothetically, even IF it is POSSIBLE for a 767 to penetrate the tower, this does not mean that it actually occurred. My evidence deals with what actually occurred.





Turbofan
Nov 15 2008, 10:12 AM
Post #45


Active Pilot


Group: Administrator
Posts: 529
Joined: 21-November 07
From: Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 2,501



Everyone please calm down and breathe a little. We are all on the same side, and want answers. The presentation submitted here is very well done
and challenges those who believe aircraft were involved (like myself) to study the anomalies of the video and photo evidence.

It has been proven that the Naudet footage of the second strike was manipulated. This implicates Naudet as part of the cover-up.
This also suggests the video of the first tower strike was staged/edited.

We also have knowledge of RADAR data which does not reflect the video flight path toward the tower.

My previous questions concerning the North tower video suggest the firemen scoping the sewer system were part of the cover-up
as well. Is this a possibilty? We know that a 'countdown' was broadcast over their two-way radios prior to the collapse of WTC#7
as told by first responder testimony. Portions of the firefighter community knew in advance.

Is it also possible that the video we saw on 9/11 news that morning was not live at all (with respect to the South tower explosion)?
If I recall, there was a time shift in seismic data vs. alleged impact times? Don't quote me, I'm just thinking off the top...



Sanders
Nov 15 2008, 12:04 PM
Post #46


Extreme Pilot


Group: Administrator
Posts: 5,809
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Yes, thank you Turbofan. The "tone" of your post was right on. If I might allow myself to presume, AB has, as far as I can tell, taken this topic seriously and tried to sort the wheat from the chaff as it were ... and probably gotten a lot of flack for his views on various sites. As for P4T, AB, you might take this to heart, we thrashed out the NPT arguments here on this forum AT LENGTH a year ago. There were calls to ban the whole discussion, which we as admins and mods rejected, one of our comrades, a mod, a friend, was actually ejected over this topic. We have been through this up and down and sideways.

Still, the world doesn't change - unless you hang your hopes on Obama. ( )

WHAT IF ... there were no planes, video fakery was part of the hoax. And we have evidence.

SO WHAT???

We have all sorts of evidence, the most incriminating being the FDR files acquired and analyzed by members of this forum. Whoop - de - doo!!!! They won't let the mainstream media report on a group of professional pilots who analyzed the AA77 black box data - but "evidence" that the planes were CG'd is gonna get us somewhere???

IN YOUR DREAMS!!!!!!!

CONVERSELY, if ANYTHING, the NPT arguments - however true they may or may not be (depends on the argument - there's a lot of BS floating around regarding this subject ... I already commended AB for focusing on the real evidence and ignoring the junk) ... are fodder for the discrediting of the "truth movement" on the whole. Simply because the premise is too far-out in left field for many people to take seriously.

That's the truth, and the perpetrators know it, and that's why this NPT craze has been "fomented". I'm not suggesting for a minute that anyone that WE know is anywhere near the root of this, nor am I suggesting that AB's research is not of the highest caliber. I'm talking on a whole different level.

Ever hear the term, "Open Complicity"? - That's what No-Plane is. A means to tie the media in a concrete way to the 9/11 conspiracy, to ensure their eternal loyalty. It's a catch 22 for us, because it ensures that the media will fight any airing of 9/11 truth in a meaningful way - in perpetuity.

I'm sorry, I'm sort of rambling. AB's approach is, in my opinion from what I have read so far, on the admirable side ... especially considering the flood of bullsh#t we have seen from the NPT camp. I was convinced early on, for aluminum wings should not be able to slice through structural steel girders, much less reinforced concrete floor slabs, as miraculously appears to have happened. But so what? How is that knowlege going to save me from the day (maybe not so far off!!!) when they say ... you need to have this chip implanted in your arm ... otherwise, you won't be able to buy food.

????


--------------------
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right." - Benjamin Franklin



acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 12:31 PM
Post #47


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (Sanders @ Nov 15 2008, 11:04 AM)
Yes, thank you Turbofan. The "tone" of your post was right on. If I might allow myself to presume, AB has, as far as I can tell, taken this topic seriously and tried to sort the wheat from the chaff as it were ... and probably gotten a lot of flack for his views on various sites. As for P4T, AB, you might take this to heart, we thrashed out the NPT arguments here on this forum AT LENGTH a year ago. There were calls to ban the whole discussion, which we as admins and mods rejected, one of our comrades, a mod, a friend, was actually ejected over this topic. We have been through this up and down and sideways.

Still, the world doesn't change - unless you hang your hopes on Obama. ( )

WHAT IF ... there were no planes, video fakery was part of the hoax. And we have evidence.

SO WHAT???

We have all sorts of evidence, the most incriminating being the FDR files acquired and analyzed by members of this forum. Whoop - de - doo!!!! They won't let the mainstream media report on a group of professional pilots who analyzed the AA77 black box data - but "evidence" that the planes were CG'd is gonna get us somewhere???

IN YOUR DREAMS!!!!!!!

CONVERSELY, if ANYTHING, the NPT arguments - however true they may or may not be (depends on the argument - there's a lot of BS floating around regarding this subject ... I already commended AB for focusing on the real evidence and ignoring the junk) ... are fodder for the discrediting of the "truth movement" on the whole. Simply because the premise is too far-out in left field for many people to take seriously.

That's the truth, and the perpetrators know it, and that's why this NPT craze has been "fomented". I'm not suggesting for a minute that anyone that WE know is anywhere near the root of this, nor am I suggesting that AB's research is not of the highest caliber. I'm talking on a whole different level.

Ever hear the term, "Open Complicity"? - That's what No-Plane is. A means to tie the media in a concrete way to the 9/11 conspiracy, to ensure their eternal loyalty. It's a catch 22 for us, because it ensures that the media will fight any airing of 9/11 truth in a meaningful way - in perpetuity.

I'm sorry, I'm sort of rambling. AB's approach is, in my opinion from what I have read so far, on the admirable side ... especially considering the flood of bullsh#t we have seen from the NPT camp. I was convinced early on, for aluminum wings should not be able to slice through structural steel girders, much less reinforced concrete floor slabs, as miraculously appears to have happened. But so what? How is that knowlege going to save me from the day (maybe not so far off!!!) when they say ... you need to have this chip implanted in your arm ... otherwise, you won't be able to buy food.

????

You are quite correct about the flood of nonsense from the NPT "camp". September Clues is 90-95% false. After extensive interaction with Simon Shack (September Clues), Fred BS Registration (911 Octopus), Webfairy, Nico Haupt, and Killtown, I'm convinced they are screwing up the case ON PURPOSE. They don't want to get it right. Killtown has banned me from his forum, Fred has made videos accusing my wife of being a Mossad agent, etc.

I have no ear for the argument that NPT "discredits the movement". This is a political argument, not a scientific one. If you want to be part of the "911 Political Correctness Movement", then go for it. But "Truth" must be about truth.

The truth is, those videos are video composites. I strongly urge P4T members who feel NPT is bad for the movement to follow one of two courses:

1. Review the evidence, change your mind, understand the vital importance of NPT, and promote it with conviction.

or

2. Change the name of this group to "Pilots for 9/11 Political Correctness" (P4PC).

Sinerely,

Ace Baker

This post has been edited by acebaker: Nov 15 2008, 12:45 PM



acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 12:35 PM
Post #48


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Hopefully members will actually review this evidence, and reach a forum consensus that the 9/11 videos are composites, and that this proves no plane crashes at the WTC. Otherwise, please attempt to refute it, that is why I'm here.

22 data points.




Quest
Nov 15 2008, 01:40 PM
Post #49


Extreme Pilot


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 1,143
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (INP @ Nov 14 2008, 09:58 PM)
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.

Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm



Sanders
Nov 15 2008, 01:40 PM
Post #50


Extreme Pilot


Group: Administrator
Posts: 5,809
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



I was in relative agreement with you until ...

QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 19 2008, 11:31 AM)
2. Change the name of this group to "Pilots for 9/11 Political Correctness" (P4PC).

You are out of your league here. You think we haven't been over, through, inside and out of this argument?

You think that NPT will save this nation???


Here, I'll give you some "politically correct" commentary from a P4T administrator ... NPT, however true, is essentially masterbation. That's why I don't pay attention to this anymore.

Show me how you will eliminate the Federal Reserve's stranglehold on America, and you have my attention.


--------------------
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right." - Benjamin Franklin



painter
Nov 15 2008, 01:52 PM
Post #51


* M E R C U R I A L*


Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,763
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Sanders @ Nov 15 2008, 09:40 AM)
I was in total agreement with you until ...

QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 19 2008, 11:31 AM)
2. Change the name of this group to "Pilots for 9/11 Political Correctness" (P4PC).

You are out of your league here. You think we haven't been over, through, inside and out of this argument?

You think that NPT will save this nation???


Here, I'll give you some "politically correct" commentary from a P4T administrator ... NPT, however true, is essentially masterbation. That's why I don't pay attention to this anymore.

Show me how you will eliminate the Federal Reserve's stranglehold on America, and you have my attention.


Ditto what Sanders said. First of all, it is disrespectful and condescending. It's an attitude I've seen displayed by the NPT/VF crowd over and over again -- and then they wonder why few of us take them seriously. It isn't a matter of "political correctness," it is a matter of what can be independently corroborated by evidence. It is one thing to show that there are anomalies with the video evidence that was broadcast that day -- there is. It is quite another matter to PROVE conclusively that these anomalies were a consistent pattern of deception to the point where the entire global population were persuaded to believe something that did not in fact happen. Truth isn't an "all or nothing" matter. People may begin with a thread of doubt and, through following their question, begin to convince themselves that what they once believed to be true may not be in fact true. This is how it works and there are LEVELS to this. Jesus, it isn't just about PLANES on 9/11 that we've been deceived -- once one begins to go down the rabbit hole, one realizes that DECEPTION is the rule; it is HOW they rule. But it takes a long time to get to that point and then, from that point, begin to try and separate the 'wheat from the chaff' about not only the history of this country, but the history of everything including who and what we are and why we're here and what, if anything, all this means -- not to mention what if anything we can or will do about it.

So, Ace, please don't lecture us. That isn't going to win you any friends here. Make your case. Be open to criticism. Get the chip off your shoulder. Work with us, not against us. Respect us enough to conclude that your work will speak for itself and we're intelligent enough to draw our own conclusions and, more over, to be willing to change our conclusions (or not) as new information and evidence is presented. That's the way it works.



Oceans Flow
Nov 15 2008, 02:54 PM
Post #52


Extreme Pilot


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,704
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Nov 14 2008, 12:47 PM)
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?


--------------------
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. “But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism.” So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown? “You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business,” he says. “As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser.” ~ The National UAE 11/06/08



painter
Nov 15 2008, 03:51 PM
Post #53


* M E R C U R I A L*


Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,763
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



I haven't yet gone all the way through the lengthy presentation by AB that launches this thread. However, I want to make an obvious point regarding post #3 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758713 and the analysis put forward in these two images:





This analysis assumes that the alleged plane is traveling parallel or roughly parallel to the plane of the photo receptors of the camera. That should be a question. Was it? If yes, then this method of determining where the plane "ought" to be is accurate or sufficiently accurate for discussion. However, if it was NOT traveling parallel or nearly parallel to the picture plane of the camera, then this analysis has to be rejected as flawed.

The reason is PERSPECTIVE -- and for purposes of this discussion there are two kinds of perspective: spatial and atmospheric.

Spatial Perspective: Imagine that you are looking at a long sequence of fence posts on a flat surface (no hills) that are equal or roughly equal distant apart. Imagine that these posts form a line that stretches from horizon to horizon (that is, a great distance, such that the most distant posts to the right and left appear to 'go over' the horizon -- what artists call "the vanishing point" or VP). What you will see will depend upon A: your angle or line of sight and B: your distance from the line of posts. If you are standing directly beside the line of posts, looking parallel to the line, your field of vision will be narrow and all posts you can see will appear to be roughly equal distant apart. However, from this close vantage, to see more posts (those outside your peripheral vision) you are going to have to turn your head to the left or right and as you do so your angle of perspective changes. If you look to the left you will see all the posts receding away from you to the left horizon, if you look to the right, same thing. And what is apparent then is that the posts do not 'appear' to be equal distant. They appear to be closer and closer together as they recede toward the vanishing point. There is even a geometric formation for representing this:



Now, the further one is away from this line of fence posts, the less obvious this "foreshortening" (as artists call it) is going to be evident. If I'm standing a long ways away looking at the fence and looking parallel to it, I will see many posts in my field of vision and they will all appear more or less equal distant. But the basic principal remains. Even from this far vantage point to see all the posts I will have to change my angle of vision and turn my head slightly one way or another to see what is beyond my peripheral vision and, as I do this, the same observation will be made. Those receding into the far distance will appear closer together until they "vanish" at the horizon.

Applying these principals of spatial perspective to the question of determining where the plane "ought" to be, we have to know how far away the camera is from the line the plane is traveling on. We have to know whether or not the camera is looking straight on, parallel, to the flight path or whether the camera is looking at the flight path from an angle. In either case, one can't merely assume that taking one measurement and applying it equally over the long, wide angle shot, will give us a precise indication of where the plane "ought" to be visible. Maybe, maybe not. This problem of determining the location is compounded if the plane is not traveling level across the ground (if it is descending from one altitude to another, for example) AND/OR if the plane is not traveling in a straight line but CURVING.

All the above need to be taken into account in order to stipulate emphatically that we know for a certainty where the plane OUGHT to be in any given frame.

Atmospheric Perspective:



Finally, we need to include the effects that atmosphere plays upon perspective. None of this negates what is said about spatial perspective but includes another element because the fact is the further something is away from us in an atmosphere, the less contrast it has and the less visible it is There are a lot of variables regarding atmospheric perspective but primarily it has to do with the amount of humidity or pollution in the atmosphere and the angle of light relative to what I'm looking at. The more humidity or pollution in the atmosphere, the further away the object is, the smaller the object is relative to the scale of the scene, the more the light reflecting off that object is going to be scattered through the atmosphere. If it is a relatively small object very far away and it is not a cold, clear day, I might not see it at all because no light reflecting off its surface reaches me. It is all scattered about in the atmosphere. As it draws closer, of course, at some point it will become visible. The question relevant to this discussion is at what point? This question is compounded because we are dealing not with the human eye but with a camera which is less sensitive than the human eye. Worse, we're dealing with a digitized version of an original video source. We don't know what faint visual data may have been lost in transition and compression.

What I'm presenting here is not an argument against NPT/VF but a critique of AB's methodology in this instance. He has not taken these two principals of perspective into account and assumes that the plane ought to be within the field of the camera at a set point and uses the fact that it is not as a support for his general NPT/VF theory. What I'm indicating is that we can not reasonably assume this to be the case. There are many variables which need to be addressed before we can make this assertion of a set point on a picture plane where the aircraft ought to be visible.



acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 04:44 PM
Post #54


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (painter @ Nov 15 2008, 02:51 PM)
I haven't yet gone all the way through the lengthy presentation by AB that launches this thread. However, I want to make an obvious point regarding post #3 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758713 and the analysis put forward in these two images:





This analysis assumes that the alleged plane is traveling parallel or roughly parallel to the plane of the photo receptors of the camera. That should be a question. Was it? If yes, then this method of determining where the plane "ought" to be is accurate or sufficiently accurate for discussion. However, if it was NOT traveling parallel or nearly parallel to the picture plane of the camera, then this analysis has to be rejected as flawed.

The reason is PERSPECTIVE -- and for purposes of this discussion there are two kinds of perspective: spatial and atmospheric.

Spatial Perspective: Imagine that you are looking at a long sequence of fence posts on a flat surface (no hills) that are equal or roughly equal distant apart. Imagine that these posts form a line that stretches from horizon to horizon (that is, a great distance, such that the most distant posts to the right and left appear to 'go over' the horizon -- what artists call "the vanishing point" or VP). What you will see will depend upon A: your angle or line of sight and B: your distance from the line of posts. If you are standing directly beside the line of posts, looking parallel to the line, your field of vision will be narrow and all posts you can see will appear to be roughly equal distant apart. However, from this close vantage, to see more posts (those outside your peripheral vision) you are going to have to turn your head to the left or right and as you do so your angle of perspective changes. If you look to the left you will see all the posts receding away from you to the left horizon, if you look to the right, same thing. And what is apparent then is that the posts do not 'appear' to be equal distant. They appear to be closer and closer together as they recede toward the vanishing point. There is even a geometric formation for representing this:



Now, the further one is away from this line of fence posts, the less obvious this "foreshortening" (as artists call it) is going to be evident. If I'm standing a long ways away looking at the fence and looking parallel to it, I will see many posts in my field of vision and they will all appear more or less equal distant. But the basic principal remains. Even from this far vantage point to see all the posts I will have to change my angle of vision and turn my head slightly one way or another to see what is beyond my peripheral vision and, as I do this, the same observation will be made. Those receding into the far distance will appear closer together until they "vanish" at the horizon.

Applying these principals of spatial perspective to the question of determining where the plane "ought" to be, we have to know how far away the camera is from the line the plane is traveling on. We have to know whether or not the camera is looking straight on, parallel, to the flight path or whether the camera is looking at the flight path from an angle. In either case, one can't merely assume that taking one measurement and applying it equally over the long, wide angle shot, will give us a precise indication of where the plane "ought" to be visible. Maybe, maybe not. This problem of determining the location is compounded if the plane is not traveling level across the ground (if it is descending from one altitude to another, for example) AND/OR if the plane is not traveling in a straight line but CURVING.

All the above need to be taken into account in order to stipulate emphatically that we know for a certainty where the plane OUGHT to be in any given frame.

Atmospheric Perspective:



Finally, we need to include the effects that atmosphere plays upon perspective. None of this negates what is said about spatial perspective but includes another element because the fact is the further something is away from us in an atmosphere, the less contrast it has and the less visible it is There are a lot of variables regarding atmospheric perspective but primarily it has to do with the amount of humidity or pollution in the atmosphere and the angle of light relative to what I'm looking at. The more humidity or pollution in the atmosphere, the further away the object is, the smaller the object is relative to the scale of the scene, the more the light reflecting off that object is going to be scattered through the atmosphere. If it is a relatively small object very far away and it is not a cold, clear day, I might not see it at all because no light reflecting off its surface reaches me. It is all scattered about in the atmosphere. As it draws closer, of course, at some point it will become visible. The question relevant to this discussion is at what point? This question is compounded because we are dealing not with the human eye but with a camera which is less sensitive than the human eye. Worse, we're dealing with a digitized version of an original video source. We don't know what faint visual data may have been lost in transition and compression.

What I'm presenting here is not an argument against NPT/VF but a critique of AB's methodology in this instance. He has not taken these two principals of perspective into account and assumes that the plane ought to be within the field of the camera at a set point and uses the fact that it is not as a support for his general NPT/VF theory. What I'm indicating is that we can not reasonably assume this to be the case. There are many variables which need to be addressed before we can make this assertion of a set point on a picture plane where the aircraft ought to be visible.

At last, an actual scientific critique. Though not included in the thread, I did take time to see that the path of "UA175" was nearly perpendicular to the line of sight. Following will be a post of a Google Earth.







acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 04:57 PM
Post #55


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Chopper 5 wide shot is frame 1-170. Plane "impact" at frame 427.
427 frames / 30 = 14.23 seconds.
Plane travels 542 mph (NIST).
542 mph = 794.93 feet/sec.
795 feet/sec * 14.23 sec = 11315 feet away from tower at frame 1.
170 frames = 5.67 sec
5.67 sec * 795 feet/sec = 4504 feet traveled during 170 frames.
11315 feet - 4504 feet = 6811 feet away in frame 170.





acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 05:05 PM
Post #56


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Of course, any object on video will disappear at some point, as the camera is pulled back. Go far enough out in space, the whole earth would disappear. The question is, will a 767 disappear at 4 1/2 miles, silhouetted against a bright sky, zoomed out?

My control case says no. I was 6 1/2 miles, similar situation, bright sky, zoomed out.

The question of whether the plane would be in frame is decided with certainty. Besides the two different proofs offered in the thread, I have also employed a third, completely different method. I modeled the motion of the airplane, after scaling the frames. All 3 methods agree.

If someone wants to demonstrate video refuting my control case, I'll have a look at it.





acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 05:49 PM
Post #57


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



If posters do not have any scientific response the the 22 data points that prove video compositing, I ask that you please refrain from posting on this thread. Thank you.

Ace Baker





Oceans Flow
Nov 15 2008, 06:06 PM
Post #58


Extreme Pilot


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,704
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



Here's a side thread so we can keep this one on topic.


--------------------
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. “But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism.” So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown? “You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business,” he says. “As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser.” ~ The National UAE 11/06/08



painter
Nov 15 2008, 06:19 PM
Post #59


* M E R C U R I A L*


Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,763
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 15 2008, 01:05 PM)
Of course, any object on video will disappear at some point, as the camera is pulled back. Go far enough out in space, the whole earth would disappear. The question is, will a 767 disappear at 4 1/2 miles, silhouetted against a bright sky, zoomed out?

My control case says no. I was 6 1/2 miles, similar situation, bright sky, zoomed out.

The question of whether the plane would be in frame is decided with certainty. Besides the two different proofs offered in the thread, I have also employed a third, completely different method. I modeled the motion of the airplane, after scaling the frames. All 3 methods agree.

If someone wants to demonstrate video refuting my control case, I'll have a look at it.

First, I appreciate the added information in your post #57 above. This pretty much rules out spatial perspective PROVIDED the flight path you've indicated is accurate. Missing from what you've provided is angle of descent. Not an overwhelming factor but it might be relevant if significant.

Second, I would appreciate it if you'd link to your "control case" mentioned above. It might very well be in this thread but I don't have time to go looking for it. I'm multi tasking as it is.

Third, have you considered the effects of FOCUS when dealing with a video zoom lens that is moving from wide angle to telephoto? I'm not a videographer much less someone who understands lens optics but this could be an important detail, especially in relation to atmospheric perspective. As indicated in my post above, the further an object is from the camera, the more dispersed the light reflecting off it will be with the atmospheric conditions being a variable. The question is, what role does zooming in on a distant object have in relation to its visibility in the atmosphere? Does that question make sense?

One other question I have, especially in relation to this particular video, is the 'atmospheric quality' evident in the video. It appears very hazy, almost as if it was taken on a day that was not clear when we know it was a relatively clear day and, moreover, the color of the sky is very warm (yellow), not a cool blue. Why is this do you think? What does it tell us about the quality of the video? Was it being shot through a dirty window or through an open door/window? What effect does this have on the question of the visibility of the alleged craft in a long shot?





acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 07:29 PM
Post #60


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (painter @ Nov 15 2008, 06:19 PM)
Second, I would appreciate it if you'd link to your "control case" mentioned above.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758714







« Next Oldest · Alternative Theories · Next Newest »


7 Pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > »

1 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: acebaker



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2008 - 03:38 AM



All views expressed in this forum are not necessarily the views of pilotsfor911truth.org

Powered By IP.Board 2.3.5 © 2008 IPS, Inc.


Pilots For 9/11 Truth Pilots For 9/11 Truth Portal Forum Rules Help Search Members Calendar



Guests Please Register For Full Forum Access. Thank You.
(you must be logged in to post and view entire forum)

Logged in as: acebaker ( Log Out )
My Controls · View New Posts · My Assistant · My Friends · 1 New Messages
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Research > Alternative Theories
7 Pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > »
Ace Baker - Video Composite Theory Set, merged threads
Options
Sanders
Nov 14 2008, 07:38 PM
Post #41


Extreme Pilot


Group: Administrator
Posts: 5,809
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



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.




--------------------
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right." - Benjamin Franklin



GroundPounder
Nov 14 2008, 08:27 PM
Post #42


Private Pilot


Group: Private Pilot
Posts: 176
Joined: 13-December 06
Member No.: 315



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
Nov 14 2008, 10:23 PM
Post #43


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 14 2008, 08:27 PM)
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



acebaker
Nov 14 2008, 10:42 PM
Post #44


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



And, of course, the alleged computer modeling does not directly apply to my thesis. Hypothetically, even IF it is POSSIBLE for a 767 to penetrate the tower, this does not mean that it actually occurred. My evidence deals with what actually occurred.





Turbofan
Nov 15 2008, 10:12 AM
Post #45


Active Pilot


Group: Administrator
Posts: 529
Joined: 21-November 07
From: Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 2,501



Everyone please calm down and breathe a little. We are all on the same side, and want answers. The presentation submitted here is very well done
and challenges those who believe aircraft were involved (like myself) to study the anomalies of the video and photo evidence.

It has been proven that the Naudet footage of the second strike was manipulated. This implicates Naudet as part of the cover-up.
This also suggests the video of the first tower strike was staged/edited.

We also have knowledge of RADAR data which does not reflect the video flight path toward the tower.

My previous questions concerning the North tower video suggest the firemen scoping the sewer system were part of the cover-up
as well. Is this a possibilty? We know that a 'countdown' was broadcast over their two-way radios prior to the collapse of WTC#7
as told by first responder testimony. Portions of the firefighter community knew in advance.

Is it also possible that the video we saw on 9/11 news that morning was not live at all (with respect to the South tower explosion)?
If I recall, there was a time shift in seismic data vs. alleged impact times? Don't quote me, I'm just thinking off the top...



Sanders
Nov 15 2008, 12:04 PM
Post #46


Extreme Pilot


Group: Administrator
Posts: 5,809
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Yes, thank you Turbofan. The "tone" of your post was right on. If I might allow myself to presume, AB has, as far as I can tell, taken this topic seriously and tried to sort the wheat from the chaff as it were ... and probably gotten a lot of flack for his views on various sites. As for P4T, AB, you might take this to heart, we thrashed out the NPT arguments here on this forum AT LENGTH a year ago. There were calls to ban the whole discussion, which we as admins and mods rejected, one of our comrades, a mod, a friend, was actually ejected over this topic. We have been through this up and down and sideways.

Still, the world doesn't change - unless you hang your hopes on Obama. ( )

WHAT IF ... there were no planes, video fakery was part of the hoax. And we have evidence.

SO WHAT???

We have all sorts of evidence, the most incriminating being the FDR files acquired and analyzed by members of this forum. Whoop - de - doo!!!! They won't let the mainstream media report on a group of professional pilots who analyzed the AA77 black box data - but "evidence" that the planes were CG'd is gonna get us somewhere???

IN YOUR DREAMS!!!!!!!

CONVERSELY, if ANYTHING, the NPT arguments - however true they may or may not be (depends on the argument - there's a lot of BS floating around regarding this subject ... I already commended AB for focusing on the real evidence and ignoring the junk) ... are fodder for the discrediting of the "truth movement" on the whole. Simply because the premise is too far-out in left field for many people to take seriously.

That's the truth, and the perpetrators know it, and that's why this NPT craze has been "fomented". I'm not suggesting for a minute that anyone that WE know is anywhere near the root of this, nor am I suggesting that AB's research is not of the highest caliber. I'm talking on a whole different level.

Ever hear the term, "Open Complicity"? - That's what No-Plane is. A means to tie the media in a concrete way to the 9/11 conspiracy, to ensure their eternal loyalty. It's a catch 22 for us, because it ensures that the media will fight any airing of 9/11 truth in a meaningful way - in perpetuity.

I'm sorry, I'm sort of rambling. AB's approach is, in my opinion from what I have read so far, on the admirable side ... especially considering the flood of bullsh#t we have seen from the NPT camp. I was convinced early on, for aluminum wings should not be able to slice through structural steel girders, much less reinforced concrete floor slabs, as miraculously appears to have happened. But so what? How is that knowlege going to save me from the day (maybe not so far off!!!) when they say ... you need to have this chip implanted in your arm ... otherwise, you won't be able to buy food.

????


--------------------
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right." - Benjamin Franklin



acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 12:31 PM
Post #47


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (Sanders @ Nov 15 2008, 11:04 AM)
Yes, thank you Turbofan. The "tone" of your post was right on. If I might allow myself to presume, AB has, as far as I can tell, taken this topic seriously and tried to sort the wheat from the chaff as it were ... and probably gotten a lot of flack for his views on various sites. As for P4T, AB, you might take this to heart, we thrashed out the NPT arguments here on this forum AT LENGTH a year ago. There were calls to ban the whole discussion, which we as admins and mods rejected, one of our comrades, a mod, a friend, was actually ejected over this topic. We have been through this up and down and sideways.

Still, the world doesn't change - unless you hang your hopes on Obama. ( )

WHAT IF ... there were no planes, video fakery was part of the hoax. And we have evidence.

SO WHAT???

We have all sorts of evidence, the most incriminating being the FDR files acquired and analyzed by members of this forum. Whoop - de - doo!!!! They won't let the mainstream media report on a group of professional pilots who analyzed the AA77 black box data - but "evidence" that the planes were CG'd is gonna get us somewhere???

IN YOUR DREAMS!!!!!!!

CONVERSELY, if ANYTHING, the NPT arguments - however true they may or may not be (depends on the argument - there's a lot of BS floating around regarding this subject ... I already commended AB for focusing on the real evidence and ignoring the junk) ... are fodder for the discrediting of the "truth movement" on the whole. Simply because the premise is too far-out in left field for many people to take seriously.

That's the truth, and the perpetrators know it, and that's why this NPT craze has been "fomented". I'm not suggesting for a minute that anyone that WE know is anywhere near the root of this, nor am I suggesting that AB's research is not of the highest caliber. I'm talking on a whole different level.

Ever hear the term, "Open Complicity"? - That's what No-Plane is. A means to tie the media in a concrete way to the 9/11 conspiracy, to ensure their eternal loyalty. It's a catch 22 for us, because it ensures that the media will fight any airing of 9/11 truth in a meaningful way - in perpetuity.

I'm sorry, I'm sort of rambling. AB's approach is, in my opinion from what I have read so far, on the admirable side ... especially considering the flood of bullsh#t we have seen from the NPT camp. I was convinced early on, for aluminum wings should not be able to slice through structural steel girders, much less reinforced concrete floor slabs, as miraculously appears to have happened. But so what? How is that knowlege going to save me from the day (maybe not so far off!!!) when they say ... you need to have this chip implanted in your arm ... otherwise, you won't be able to buy food.

????

You are quite correct about the flood of nonsense from the NPT "camp". September Clues is 90-95% false. After extensive interaction with Simon Shack (September Clues), Fred BS Registration (911 Octopus), Webfairy, Nico Haupt, and Killtown, I'm convinced they are screwing up the case ON PURPOSE. They don't want to get it right. Killtown has banned me from his forum, Fred has made videos accusing my wife of being a Mossad agent, etc.

I have no ear for the argument that NPT "discredits the movement". This is a political argument, not a scientific one. If you want to be part of the "911 Political Correctness Movement", then go for it. But "Truth" must be about truth.

The truth is, those videos are video composites. I strongly urge P4T members who feel NPT is bad for the movement to follow one of two courses:

1. Review the evidence, change your mind, understand the vital importance of NPT, and promote it with conviction.

or

2. Change the name of this group to "Pilots for 9/11 Political Correctness" (P4PC).

Sinerely,

Ace Baker

This post has been edited by acebaker: Nov 15 2008, 12:45 PM



acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 12:35 PM
Post #48


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Hopefully members will actually review this evidence, and reach a forum consensus that the 9/11 videos are composites, and that this proves no plane crashes at the WTC. Otherwise, please attempt to refute it, that is why I'm here.

22 data points.




Quest
Nov 15 2008, 01:40 PM
Post #49


Extreme Pilot


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 1,143
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (INP @ Nov 14 2008, 09:58 PM)
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.

Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm



Sanders
Nov 15 2008, 01:40 PM
Post #50


Extreme Pilot


Group: Administrator
Posts: 5,809
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



I was in relative agreement with you until ...

QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 19 2008, 11:31 AM)
2. Change the name of this group to "Pilots for 9/11 Political Correctness" (P4PC).

You are out of your league here. You think we haven't been over, through, inside and out of this argument?

You think that NPT will save this nation???


Here, I'll give you some "politically correct" commentary from a P4T administrator ... NPT, however true, is essentially masterbation. That's why I don't pay attention to this anymore.

Show me how you will eliminate the Federal Reserve's stranglehold on America, and you have my attention.


--------------------
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right." - Benjamin Franklin



painter
Nov 15 2008, 01:52 PM
Post #51


* M E R C U R I A L*


Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,763
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Sanders @ Nov 15 2008, 09:40 AM)
I was in total agreement with you until ...

QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 19 2008, 11:31 AM)
2. Change the name of this group to "Pilots for 9/11 Political Correctness" (P4PC).

You are out of your league here. You think we haven't been over, through, inside and out of this argument?

You think that NPT will save this nation???


Here, I'll give you some "politically correct" commentary from a P4T administrator ... NPT, however true, is essentially masterbation. That's why I don't pay attention to this anymore.

Show me how you will eliminate the Federal Reserve's stranglehold on America, and you have my attention.


Ditto what Sanders said. First of all, it is disrespectful and condescending. It's an attitude I've seen displayed by the NPT/VF crowd over and over again -- and then they wonder why few of us take them seriously. It isn't a matter of "political correctness," it is a matter of what can be independently corroborated by evidence. It is one thing to show that there are anomalies with the video evidence that was broadcast that day -- there is. It is quite another matter to PROVE conclusively that these anomalies were a consistent pattern of deception to the point where the entire global population were persuaded to believe something that did not in fact happen. Truth isn't an "all or nothing" matter. People may begin with a thread of doubt and, through following their question, begin to convince themselves that what they once believed to be true may not be in fact true. This is how it works and there are LEVELS to this. Jesus, it isn't just about PLANES on 9/11 that we've been deceived -- once one begins to go down the rabbit hole, one realizes that DECEPTION is the rule; it is HOW they rule. But it takes a long time to get to that point and then, from that point, begin to try and separate the 'wheat from the chaff' about not only the history of this country, but the history of everything including who and what we are and why we're here and what, if anything, all this means -- not to mention what if anything we can or will do about it.

So, Ace, please don't lecture us. That isn't going to win you any friends here. Make your case. Be open to criticism. Get the chip off your shoulder. Work with us, not against us. Respect us enough to conclude that your work will speak for itself and we're intelligent enough to draw our own conclusions and, more over, to be willing to change our conclusions (or not) as new information and evidence is presented. That's the way it works.



Oceans Flow
Nov 15 2008, 02:54 PM
Post #52


Extreme Pilot


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,704
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Nov 14 2008, 12:47 PM)
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?


--------------------
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. “But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism.” So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown? “You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business,” he says. “As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser.” ~ The National UAE 11/06/08



painter
Nov 15 2008, 03:51 PM
Post #53


* M E R C U R I A L*


Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,763
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



I haven't yet gone all the way through the lengthy presentation by AB that launches this thread. However, I want to make an obvious point regarding post #3 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758713 and the analysis put forward in these two images:





This analysis assumes that the alleged plane is traveling parallel or roughly parallel to the plane of the photo receptors of the camera. That should be a question. Was it? If yes, then this method of determining where the plane "ought" to be is accurate or sufficiently accurate for discussion. However, if it was NOT traveling parallel or nearly parallel to the picture plane of the camera, then this analysis has to be rejected as flawed.

The reason is PERSPECTIVE -- and for purposes of this discussion there are two kinds of perspective: spatial and atmospheric.

Spatial Perspective: Imagine that you are looking at a long sequence of fence posts on a flat surface (no hills) that are equal or roughly equal distant apart. Imagine that these posts form a line that stretches from horizon to horizon (that is, a great distance, such that the most distant posts to the right and left appear to 'go over' the horizon -- what artists call "the vanishing point" or VP). What you will see will depend upon A: your angle or line of sight and B: your distance from the line of posts. If you are standing directly beside the line of posts, looking parallel to the line, your field of vision will be narrow and all posts you can see will appear to be roughly equal distant apart. However, from this close vantage, to see more posts (those outside your peripheral vision) you are going to have to turn your head to the left or right and as you do so your angle of perspective changes. If you look to the left you will see all the posts receding away from you to the left horizon, if you look to the right, same thing. And what is apparent then is that the posts do not 'appear' to be equal distant. They appear to be closer and closer together as they recede toward the vanishing point. There is even a geometric formation for representing this:



Now, the further one is away from this line of fence posts, the less obvious this "foreshortening" (as artists call it) is going to be evident. If I'm standing a long ways away looking at the fence and looking parallel to it, I will see many posts in my field of vision and they will all appear more or less equal distant. But the basic principal remains. Even from this far vantage point to see all the posts I will have to change my angle of vision and turn my head slightly one way or another to see what is beyond my peripheral vision and, as I do this, the same observation will be made. Those receding into the far distance will appear closer together until they "vanish" at the horizon.

Applying these principals of spatial perspective to the question of determining where the plane "ought" to be, we have to know how far away the camera is from the line the plane is traveling on. We have to know whether or not the camera is looking straight on, parallel, to the flight path or whether the camera is looking at the flight path from an angle. In either case, one can't merely assume that taking one measurement and applying it equally over the long, wide angle shot, will give us a precise indication of where the plane "ought" to be visible. Maybe, maybe not. This problem of determining the location is compounded if the plane is not traveling level across the ground (if it is descending from one altitude to another, for example) AND/OR if the plane is not traveling in a straight line but CURVING.

All the above need to be taken into account in order to stipulate emphatically that we know for a certainty where the plane OUGHT to be in any given frame.

Atmospheric Perspective:



Finally, we need to include the effects that atmosphere plays upon perspective. None of this negates what is said about spatial perspective but includes another element because the fact is the further something is away from us in an atmosphere, the less contrast it has and the less visible it is There are a lot of variables regarding atmospheric perspective but primarily it has to do with the amount of humidity or pollution in the atmosphere and the angle of light relative to what I'm looking at. The more humidity or pollution in the atmosphere, the further away the object is, the smaller the object is relative to the scale of the scene, the more the light reflecting off that object is going to be scattered through the atmosphere. If it is a relatively small object very far away and it is not a cold, clear day, I might not see it at all because no light reflecting off its surface reaches me. It is all scattered about in the atmosphere. As it draws closer, of course, at some point it will become visible. The question relevant to this discussion is at what point? This question is compounded because we are dealing not with the human eye but with a camera which is less sensitive than the human eye. Worse, we're dealing with a digitized version of an original video source. We don't know what faint visual data may have been lost in transition and compression.

What I'm presenting here is not an argument against NPT/VF but a critique of AB's methodology in this instance. He has not taken these two principals of perspective into account and assumes that the plane ought to be within the field of the camera at a set point and uses the fact that it is not as a support for his general NPT/VF theory. What I'm indicating is that we can not reasonably assume this to be the case. There are many variables which need to be addressed before we can make this assertion of a set point on a picture plane where the aircraft ought to be visible.



acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 04:44 PM
Post #54


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (painter @ Nov 15 2008, 02:51 PM)
I haven't yet gone all the way through the lengthy presentation by AB that launches this thread. However, I want to make an obvious point regarding post #3 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758713 and the analysis put forward in these two images:





This analysis assumes that the alleged plane is traveling parallel or roughly parallel to the plane of the photo receptors of the camera. That should be a question. Was it? If yes, then this method of determining where the plane "ought" to be is accurate or sufficiently accurate for discussion. However, if it was NOT traveling parallel or nearly parallel to the picture plane of the camera, then this analysis has to be rejected as flawed.

The reason is PERSPECTIVE -- and for purposes of this discussion there are two kinds of perspective: spatial and atmospheric.

Spatial Perspective: Imagine that you are looking at a long sequence of fence posts on a flat surface (no hills) that are equal or roughly equal distant apart. Imagine that these posts form a line that stretches from horizon to horizon (that is, a great distance, such that the most distant posts to the right and left appear to 'go over' the horizon -- what artists call "the vanishing point" or VP). What you will see will depend upon A: your angle or line of sight and B: your distance from the line of posts. If you are standing directly beside the line of posts, looking parallel to the line, your field of vision will be narrow and all posts you can see will appear to be roughly equal distant apart. However, from this close vantage, to see more posts (those outside your peripheral vision) you are going to have to turn your head to the left or right and as you do so your angle of perspective changes. If you look to the left you will see all the posts receding away from you to the left horizon, if you look to the right, same thing. And what is apparent then is that the posts do not 'appear' to be equal distant. They appear to be closer and closer together as they recede toward the vanishing point. There is even a geometric formation for representing this:



Now, the further one is away from this line of fence posts, the less obvious this "foreshortening" (as artists call it) is going to be evident. If I'm standing a long ways away looking at the fence and looking parallel to it, I will see many posts in my field of vision and they will all appear more or less equal distant. But the basic principal remains. Even from this far vantage point to see all the posts I will have to change my angle of vision and turn my head slightly one way or another to see what is beyond my peripheral vision and, as I do this, the same observation will be made. Those receding into the far distance will appear closer together until they "vanish" at the horizon.

Applying these principals of spatial perspective to the question of determining where the plane "ought" to be, we have to know how far away the camera is from the line the plane is traveling on. We have to know whether or not the camera is looking straight on, parallel, to the flight path or whether the camera is looking at the flight path from an angle. In either case, one can't merely assume that taking one measurement and applying it equally over the long, wide angle shot, will give us a precise indication of where the plane "ought" to be visible. Maybe, maybe not. This problem of determining the location is compounded if the plane is not traveling level across the ground (if it is descending from one altitude to another, for example) AND/OR if the plane is not traveling in a straight line but CURVING.

All the above need to be taken into account in order to stipulate emphatically that we know for a certainty where the plane OUGHT to be in any given frame.

Atmospheric Perspective:



Finally, we need to include the effects that atmosphere plays upon perspective. None of this negates what is said about spatial perspective but includes another element because the fact is the further something is away from us in an atmosphere, the less contrast it has and the less visible it is There are a lot of variables regarding atmospheric perspective but primarily it has to do with the amount of humidity or pollution in the atmosphere and the angle of light relative to what I'm looking at. The more humidity or pollution in the atmosphere, the further away the object is, the smaller the object is relative to the scale of the scene, the more the light reflecting off that object is going to be scattered through the atmosphere. If it is a relatively small object very far away and it is not a cold, clear day, I might not see it at all because no light reflecting off its surface reaches me. It is all scattered about in the atmosphere. As it draws closer, of course, at some point it will become visible. The question relevant to this discussion is at what point? This question is compounded because we are dealing not with the human eye but with a camera which is less sensitive than the human eye. Worse, we're dealing with a digitized version of an original video source. We don't know what faint visual data may have been lost in transition and compression.

What I'm presenting here is not an argument against NPT/VF but a critique of AB's methodology in this instance. He has not taken these two principals of perspective into account and assumes that the plane ought to be within the field of the camera at a set point and uses the fact that it is not as a support for his general NPT/VF theory. What I'm indicating is that we can not reasonably assume this to be the case. There are many variables which need to be addressed before we can make this assertion of a set point on a picture plane where the aircraft ought to be visible.

At last, an actual scientific critique. Though not included in the thread, I did take time to see that the path of "UA175" was nearly perpendicular to the line of sight. Following will be a post of a Google Earth.







acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 04:57 PM
Post #55


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Chopper 5 wide shot is frame 1-170. Plane "impact" at frame 427.
427 frames / 30 = 14.23 seconds.
Plane travels 542 mph (NIST).
542 mph = 794.93 feet/sec.
795 feet/sec * 14.23 sec = 11315 feet away from tower at frame 1.
170 frames = 5.67 sec
5.67 sec * 795 feet/sec = 4504 feet traveled during 170 frames.
11315 feet - 4504 feet = 6811 feet away in frame 170.





acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 05:05 PM
Post #56


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Of course, any object on video will disappear at some point, as the camera is pulled back. Go far enough out in space, the whole earth would disappear. The question is, will a 767 disappear at 4 1/2 miles, silhouetted against a bright sky, zoomed out?

My control case says no. I was 6 1/2 miles, similar situation, bright sky, zoomed out.

The question of whether the plane would be in frame is decided with certainty. Besides the two different proofs offered in the thread, I have also employed a third, completely different method. I modeled the motion of the airplane, after scaling the frames. All 3 methods agree.

If someone wants to demonstrate video refuting my control case, I'll have a look at it.





acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 05:49 PM
Post #57


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



If posters do not have any scientific response the the 22 data points that prove video compositing, I ask that you please refrain from posting on this thread. Thank you.

Ace Baker





Oceans Flow
Nov 15 2008, 06:06 PM
Post #58


Extreme Pilot


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,704
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



Here's a side thread so we can keep this one on topic.


--------------------
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. “But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism.” So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown? “You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business,” he says. “As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser.” ~ The National UAE 11/06/08



painter
Nov 15 2008, 06:19 PM
Post #59


* M E R C U R I A L*


Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,763
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 15 2008, 01:05 PM)
Of course, any object on video will disappear at some point, as the camera is pulled back. Go far enough out in space, the whole earth would disappear. The question is, will a 767 disappear at 4 1/2 miles, silhouetted against a bright sky, zoomed out?

My control case says no. I was 6 1/2 miles, similar situation, bright sky, zoomed out.

The question of whether the plane would be in frame is decided with certainty. Besides the two different proofs offered in the thread, I have also employed a third, completely different method. I modeled the motion of the airplane, after scaling the frames. All 3 methods agree.

If someone wants to demonstrate video refuting my control case, I'll have a look at it.

First, I appreciate the added information in your post #57 above. This pretty much rules out spatial perspective PROVIDED the flight path you've indicated is accurate. Missing from what you've provided is angle of descent. Not an overwhelming factor but it might be relevant if significant.

Second, I would appreciate it if you'd link to your "control case" mentioned above. It might very well be in this thread but I don't have time to go looking for it. I'm multi tasking as it is.

Third, have you considered the effects of FOCUS when dealing with a video zoom lens that is moving from wide angle to telephoto? I'm not a videographer much less someone who understands lens optics but this could be an important detail, especially in relation to atmospheric perspective. As indicated in my post above, the further an object is from the camera, the more dispersed the light reflecting off it will be with the atmospheric conditions being a variable. The question is, what role does zooming in on a distant object have in relation to its visibility in the atmosphere? Does that question make sense?

One other question I have, especially in relation to this particular video, is the 'atmospheric quality' evident in the video. It appears very hazy, almost as if it was taken on a day that was not clear when we know it was a relatively clear day and, moreover, the color of the sky is very warm (yellow), not a cool blue. Why is this do you think? What does it tell us about the quality of the video? Was it being shot through a dirty window or through an open door/window? What effect does this have on the question of the visibility of the alleged craft in a long shot?





acebaker
Nov 15 2008, 07:29 PM
Post #60


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (painter @ Nov 15 2008, 06:19 PM)
Second, I would appreciate it if you'd link to your "control case" mentioned above.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758714







« Next Oldest · Alternative Theories · Next Newest »


7 Pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > »

1 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: acebaker



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2008 - 03:38 AM



All views expressed in this forum are not necessarily the views of pilotsfor911truth.org

Powered By IP.Board 2.3.5 © 2008 IPS, Inc.


Pilots For 9/11 Truth Pilots For 9/11 Truth Portal Forum Rules Help Search Members Calendar



Guests Please Register For Full Forum Access. Thank You.
(you must be logged in to post and view entire forum)

Logged in as: acebaker ( Log Out )
My Controls · View New Posts · My Assistant · My Friends · 1 New Messages
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Research > Alternative Theories
7 Pages « < 3 4 5 6 7 >
Ace Baker - Video Composite Theory Set, merged threads
Options
acebaker
Nov 16 2008, 02:46 AM
Post #81


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



I've just learned that this entire forum is not publicly visible. How clever!

Hmmmmm. Why would P4T force me to post in a section that nobody can actually see? Why would they delete my posts in other sections? And threaten that if I posted in other sections, they'd "show me the door?"








rob balsamo
Nov 16 2008, 03:14 AM
Post #82


Extreme Pilot


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,978
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 16 2008, 01:46 AM)
I've just learned that this entire forum is not publicly visible. How clever!

Clever? Not really.. all you have to do is sign out to realize. But then again we are talking to a guy who asked in the Welcome forum if NPT was banned here... while not realizing he replied to a NPT thread months before...

You're not too bright Ace.. .are ya...


--------------------
Click on Banner for Official Website.

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.- Mark Twain



acebaker
Nov 16 2008, 03:37 AM
Post #83


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



i gess not,

i think your write. I am dum, and this wuz my last chanze. i gess they're whirr plain crash after awl.

i m so sorry. i hope u four give me for awl my bad.

piece and luv







Quest
Nov 16 2008, 01:45 PM
Post #84


Extreme Pilot


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 1,143
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Ace, I'm not exactly sure why you were banned. I should check into this more but I had no part in the decision and never had any problem with you. I would like to say this however - I have know Rob, Painter, Sanders, Cary and many others on PFT for a long time and despite any differences there has always been a willingness to get along for the greater good. I recognize that and promote it. Rob has been more than fair regarding the discussion of this topic here. It seems the majority of times there are problems is when people who are not regular members here make the mistake of suspecting that PFT has an "agenda". It doesn't. What some mistake as an agaenda is just a difference in forum culture. Many, if not most here are greybeards (like myself) and tend to be a little more conservative and stringent (that's a good thing) when making claims. Ace, I saw the thing with Ground Pounder earlier and I didn't take what he said as out of line. It was nothing and I would have given it back to him or make a joke about it. It was NBD and I would have shrugged it off.

There are far too many accusations in the truth movement and we need to be patient, especially when posting on other sites. We may agree or disagree on a given topic but that doesn't make someone one of "them".

Rob, I would love it if the CIT crew would collaborate with a few TV fakery guys (like Ace) to look into the WTC videos more and do a similar witness list like Aldo/CIT put together.

Ace, give these gus a break and you'll see they are more than fair. You've been able to spout off here and yet you haven't been suspended or banned. That should tell you something. Personally, I thing you have a lot of valuable information and if you instead put your focus on the data as opposed to those that don't agree, we'll get that much closer to the truth. Just be patient and take the criticism as constructive.



rob balsamo
Nov 16 2008, 01:54 PM
Post #85


Extreme Pilot


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,978
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Quest @ Nov 16 2008, 12:45 PM)
Rob, I would love it if the CIT crew would collaborate with a few TV fakery guys (like Ace) to look into the WTC videos more and do a similar witness list like Aldo/CIT put together.




Good luck...


Thanks for the kind words Quest... we do our best despite the flack... from both sides...




--------------------
Click on Banner for Official Website.

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.- Mark Twain



acebaker
Nov 16 2008, 01:57 PM
Post #86


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (Quest @ Nov 16 2008, 01:45 PM)
Ace, I'm not exactly sure why you were banned. I should check into this more but I had no part in the decision and never had any problem with you. I would like to say this however - I have know Rob, Painter, Sanders, Cary and many others on PFT for a long time and despite any differences there has always been a willingness to get along for the greater good. I recognize that and promote it. Rob has been more than fair regarding the discussion of this topic here. It seems the majority of times there are problems is when people who are not regular members here make the mistake of suspecting that PFT has an "agenda". It doesn't. What some mistake as an agaenda is just a difference in forum culture. Many, if not most here are greybeards (like myself) and tend to be a little more conservative and stringent (that's a good thing) when making claims. Ace, I saw the thing with Ground Pounder earlier and I didn't take what he said as out of line. It was nothing and I would have given it back to him or make a joke about it. It was NBD and I would have shrugged it off.

There are far too many accusations in the truth movement and we need to be patient, especially when posting on other sites. We may agree or disagree on a given topic but that doesn't make someone one of "them".

Rob, I would love it if the CIT crew would collaborate with a few TV fakery guys (like Ace) to look into the WTC videos more and do a similar witness list like Aldo/CIT put together.

Ace, give these gus a break and you'll see they are more than fair. You've been able to spout off here and yet you haven't been suspended or banned. That should tell you something. Personally, I thing you have a lot of valuable information and if you instead put your focus on the data as opposed to those that don't agree, we'll get that much closer to the truth. Just be patient and take the criticism as constructive.

Quest, I am banned here also. This is the banned area. At your site, the banned area is called "Purgatory" and/or "Sandbox". Here at P4T it is called "Alternative Theories". I attempted to post simple comments in existing real threads, and my posts were deleted, and moved into the banned area.

Quest, please take the following criticism as constructive: When you say you don't know what happened at your own forum, I don't believe you. I also don't know you. Do you have a real name?

When you suggest that I, of all people, should focus on data, you know perfectly well how disingenuous you are. I alone can claim to have created the most scientific, most accurate, most complete study of the video compositing evidence. The proof is this very thread, please read it.

I think Rob Balsamo and the others here are perfectly afraid of the truth, which is why they banned my study, before I even posted it.









rob balsamo
Nov 16 2008, 02:07 PM
Post #87


Extreme Pilot


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,978
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1





Seems someone still doesnt know the definition of banned. Especially when this forum section is linked in the very thread --which is public-- asking if such discussion is "banned".

Ace, your theories are not proven and are highly debatable. We discussed why. You seem to plug your ears and make excuse comparing "Wacky Bigfoot witnesses" to NYC witneses. Your tactic of trying to gain more exposure by posting links to this thread in other discussions of this board, telling others to ignore the other discussions because yours is "proven", was a slimy tactic. Plain and simple...

Listen to Quest, He is right. If you really want to learn the definition of "banned", we can arrange that, as explained before. Keep it up...


--------------------
Click on Banner for Official Website.

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.- Mark Twain



acebaker
Nov 16 2008, 02:24 PM
Post #88


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 16 2008, 02:07 PM)


Seems someone still doesnt know the definition of banned. Especially when this forum section is linked in the very thread --which is public-- asking if such discussion is "banned".

Ace, your theories are not proven and are highly debatable. We discussed why. You seem to plug your ears and make excuse comparing "Wacky Bigfoot witnesses" to NYC witneses. Your tactic of trying to gain more exposure by posting links to this thread in other discussions of this board, telling others to ignore the other discussions because yours is "proven", was a slimy tactic. Plain and simple...

Listen to Quest, He is right. If you really want to learn the definition of "banned", we can arrange that, as explained before. Keep it up...

This thread is public? LOL.

Rob, if my study is debatable, then debate it. You claim some knowledge and experience yourself in video compositing, that's great. Each of the 22 conclusions I reach is either wrong or right. So point out the mistakes.





rob balsamo
Nov 16 2008, 02:34 PM
Post #89


Extreme Pilot


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,978
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Ace, you posted here just a few short months ago under same name but with a space. How did you find this section if its "banned"? Why did you then come here a few days ago and ask if this discussion is "banned" in the Welcome Forum which is public? If this discussion is banned, why did i link this section in your Welcome forum thread?


See the large white banner at the top of every page of this forum? What does it say Ace? Now, i know you're not too bright Ace, but if someone clicks on the link in your Welcome Forum thread which is linked to this section, and it says you dont have permission to view it, what would any rational person with half a brain do when faced with the white banner at the top if he wanted to read this section? Think Ace, i have faith in ya. you'll get it eventually...

The reasons we feel your theories are highly debatable are discussed on the previous page of this thread and throughout this section. You brushed it off comparing wacky bigfoot witnesses to NYC witness as an excuse to not examine such witness lists.

Now, since you still dont get it and we are now repeating ourselves, you are on vacation for a week as i really dont have time to go round and round with you anymore... Lets see what definition you come up with for your "vacation", if you were "banned" before..

(I'll email this to Ace with his suspension notice..)


--------------------
Click on Banner for Official Website.

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.- Mark Twain



Turbofan
Nov 16 2008, 05:02 PM
Post #90


Active Pilot


Group: Administrator
Posts: 529
Joined: 21-November 07
From: Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 2,501



Points for aircraft impact

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI3KCC4snXs

50 second mark > Firefighters looking up and opposite of towers. What are they looking at?
1:30 mark > shadow on tower appears; previously mentioned difficult to impossible to insert shadow for composite video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPR0hw-mqnk...feature=related

2:50 mark > "That was not American Airlines". What is this lady referring to?
5:50 mark > 'reflection' on fuselage. How does the reflection appear on fuselage if CGI?

Points for Fake video
The moving bridge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiYUGzUUg64...feature=related

Naudet Bros South tower footage has been edited to remove the "nose out" which has also been edited in the chopper
cam 'live' footage.

We all agree that the nose of a fuselage could not survive two steel walls and retain shape. It would have also caused
a noticeable exit wound on the opposite side of the tower.

Questions:
1. Who produced and edited the Naudet DVD? [Edit: found James Hanlon and Richard Barber]
2. Could a composite layer have been included in the Naudet South tower video?
3. Was the Naudet South tower video ever aired on MSM?
4. Is it possible the tower shots of any South Tower activity/impact (explosion, aircraft, or missile) were never aired live,
but edited (using CGI, or other means) and broadcast as "live" seconds, or minutes later?
5. Besides the chopper cameras, were there any other South Tower impact videos broadcast "live" on MSM 9/11/01?

The live video and Naudet all have the same section of video blacked out, or removed:
If "no" to question #2, then what might that object have been? What did the fade-to-black want to cover up?
If "yes" to question #2, what purpose would it serve to use CGI if they edited this portion out for the DVD?

We have pilots who have witnessed the impacts of the towers with aircraft. I would be interested in hearing/reading
these accounts to learn about what they saw. Did they see a commerical airliner, or an unidentified aircraft?

There are other examples, however I'd personally like to know more about these points before moving forward.
I'll do some digging to find some information and post here for futher review.



ogrady
Nov 16 2008, 09:59 PM
Post #91


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 84
Joined: 1-October 07
Member No.: 2,291



Ace! Thanks for joining us here!

And thank you for the time you've devoted to your clear analysis. Your work speaks for itself!



acebaker
Nov 23 2008, 04:18 PM
Post #92


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



I repeat my request to interview anyone who saw an airplane crash at the WTC. Persistent requests have thus far yielded zero. Stipulations are:

1. Must be willing to go on record.
2. Must be willing to use real name.

Any witnesses will be interviewed, a pilot would be great.

My email is acebaker1234 [at] yahoo [dot] com

Sincerely,

Ace Baker





richard cranium
Nov 23 2008, 09:35 PM
Post #93


Private Pilot


Group: Private Pilot
Posts: 131
Joined: 30-December 06
From: california
Member No.: 390



This is just a FYI post. At the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" site,under "Letters to the Journal of 911",there is a great letter dated August 1,2007 by Eric Salter titled "Rebuttal of Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" Analysis".
Everybody here probably pretty much knows what the result of that analysis says.

rc

This post has been edited by richard cranium: Nov 23 2008, 09:38 PM



acebaker
Nov 23 2008, 09:53 PM
Post #94


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988





Eric Salter's entire rebuttal was based on margin of error. He says the margin of error is too high to make the claims I make.

However, when Salter wished to show that the "plane" decelerates, he did the exact same kind of analysis, plotting the position of the plane, frame by frame. To show deceleration, Salter needed a LOWER margin of error than I required to show unstable motion. We may thus dismiss Salter on that basis.

I'll also point out that Steven Jones promised he would publish my response to Salter. That response is the Opening of this thread, and Steven Jones has refused to publish it.

Here is a rigorous deconstruction of Salter, prior to the above-mentioned double standard problem:

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/...nstruction.html

This post has been edited by acebaker: Nov 23 2008, 09:54 PM



rob balsamo
Nov 23 2008, 11:49 PM
Post #95


Extreme Pilot


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,978
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Rebuttal of Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" Analysis
29 July 2007
by Eric Salter
esalter1 [at] mindspring [dot] com


UPDATE: Second Rebuttal, 3 August 2007

UPDATE: Addendum, 6 September 2007

UPDATE: Critical Review of Fox 5 Video Fakery Claims, a summarized and updated version of this page, 6 September 2007

(ed note: click on initial link above for additional rebuttals)


--------------------
Click on Banner for Official Website.

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.- Mark Twain



acebaker
Nov 24 2008, 01:22 AM
Post #96


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



There's a nice debate over on Anthony Lawson's Tube channel. Lawson had to resort to out-and-out forgery to attempt to discredit the Over-Under Puffball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBJZA0NNu8s

And my response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTbm5ewcIeU...;watch_response




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 12:46 PM
Post #97


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 813
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (Quest @ Nov 16 2008, 01:59 AM)
Lastly, the CIT team has compiled a list of 26 people who claim to have "seen" the impacts even though we know no such impact occured. Mike Walter (USA Today) is an example of someone who is a professianl liar along with Gary Bauer. Aside from the professionals, I would imagine there are more than a few that like to "embed" themselves in stories for myriad reasons. I would also imagine that New York City, with a much more sizable population, and with much of it focused on the WTC after the 2nd tower "hit", might have many more such supposed witnesses. Of the WTC impact witnesses we DO know of, most are from the media and fall into the category of Mike Walters. The others not from the media, (Carmen Taylor, Hezarkhani, Evan Fairbanks and Pavel Hlava) have produced videos that defy physics.


Oh don't you dare try to equate "witnesses" at the Pentagon to the towers, "Quest". That is your no plane bullshit trick to try and equate the Pentagon and the witnesses to the tower and their witnesses.

That list could still contain people who were fooled. Our research is much more honed and actually takes into account the POV, said career and the conflicts of interest, the inconsistencies in their accounts, the improbability of their accounts.

Let's not forget we have ACTUAL evidence in the north side approach and Roosevelt Roberts. Not a bunch of amateurs staring at grainy youtube videos.

I love how you "people" haven't contacted one goddamn witness. You just keep bothering people discrediting our efforts with your insulting idiotic bullshit.

I just posted firefighter and ems/emt witnesses, you going to imply they are liars too?!?!?!?!?!?!

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Nov 25 2008, 12:47 PM


--------------------
...can't get me down




acebaker
Nov 25 2008, 06:48 PM
Post #98


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Aldo, I think you should read this paper on false memory.

You're right about considering "the improbability" of witness accounts. The WTC witnesses claim to have seen something impossible - an airplane colliding with a steel and concrete tower without showing any signs of damage at all. Not one video shows one tiny bit of damage occurring to either the airplane or the building.

Not one.

That's why they look fake.

This post has been edited by acebaker: Nov 25 2008, 06:50 PM



dMole
Nov 26 2008, 01:07 AM
Post #99


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 25 2008, 03:48 PM)
Aldo, I think you should read this paper on false memory.
Really, quoting Dr. Elizabeth Loftus of FMSF fame?

http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/...vs-michael.html

http://www.fmsfonline.org/advboard.html#Elizabeth%20Loftus

Skeptical Inquirer, CSICOP, and the Illusionist:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9503/memory.html

http://911review.org/Alex/CIA_abuse.html

More on the FMSF:

http://www.whale.to/b/constantine1.html

http://www.voxfux.com/features/mind_contro...e_cover_up.html

http://naffoundation.org/FMSF.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Psychic-Dictatorship...e/dp/0922915288

http://www.amazon.com/Virtual-Government-C...d_bxgy_b_text_b

http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Cover-Up-Sa.../ref=pd_sim_b_5

http://truthbeknown2000.tripod.com/Truthbeknown2000/id4.html

I could go on here...


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





paranoia
Nov 26 2008, 01:59 AM
Post #100


dig deeper


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 281
Joined: 16-October 06
Member No.: 96



thanks dmole. i thought i might add this one as well:

In the Libby Case, A Grilling to Remember
Friday, October 27, 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6102601612.html

But when Fitzgerald got his chance to cross-examine Loftus about her findings, he had her stuttering to explain her own writings and backpedaling from her earlier assertions. Citing several of her publications, footnotes and the work of her peers, Fitzgerald got Loftus to acknowledge that the methodology she had used at times in her long academic career was not that scientific, that her conclusions about memory were conflicting, and that she had exaggerated a figure and a statement from her survey of D.C. jurors that favored the defense.

Her defense-paid visit to the federal court was crucial because Libby is relying on the "memory defense" against Fitzgerald's charges that he obstructed justice and lied to investigators about his role in the leaking of a CIA operative's identity to the media. Libby's attorneys argue that he did not lie -- that he was just really busy with national security matters and forgot some of his conversations.

When Fitzgerald found a line in one of her books that raised doubts about research she had cited on the stand as proof that Libby needs an expert to educate jurors, Loftus said, "I don't know how I let that line slip by."

"I'd need to see that again," Loftus said when Fitzgerald cited a line in her book that overstated her research by saying that "most jurors" consider memory to be equivalent to playing a videotape. Her research, however, found that to be true for traumatic events, and even then, only 46 percent of potential jurors thought memory could be similar to a videotape.

There were several moments when Loftus was completely caught off guard by Fitzgerald, creating some very awkward silences in the courtroom.

One of those moments came when Loftus insisted that she had never met Fitzgerald. He then reminded her that he had cross-examined her before, when she was an expert defense witness and he was a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in New York.



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




« Next Oldest · Alternative Theories · Next Newest »


7 Pages « < 3 4 5 6 7 >

1 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: acebaker



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2008 - 03:38 AM



All views expressed in this forum are not necessarily the views of pilotsfor911truth.org

Powered By IP.Board 2.3.5 © 2008 IPS, Inc.


Pilots For 9/11 Truth Pilots For 9/11 Truth Portal Forum Rules Help Search Members Calendar



Guests Please Register For Full Forum Access. Thank You.
(you must be logged in to post and view entire forum)

Logged in as: acebaker ( Log Out )
My Controls · View New Posts · My Assistant · My Friends · 1 New Messages
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Research > Alternative Theories
7 Pages « < 4 5 6 7 >
Ace Baker - Video Composite Theory Set, merged threads
Options
acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 02:00 AM
Post #101


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



@dmole -

Why don't you instead "go on" and point out the errors in my treatise. If real planes hit the towers, there must be plenty scientific errors in my work, at least about one per each of the 22 data.





dMole
Nov 26 2008, 02:59 AM
Post #102


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 25 2008, 11:00 PM)
@dmole -

Why don't you instead "go on" and point out the errors in my treatise. If real planes hit the towers, there must be plenty scientific errors in my work, at least about one per each of the 22 data.
I was replying to your [slightly-off-topic IMHO] interjection of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus into the discussion and her somewhat questionable associations based upon my previous research, there Ace. False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) has a very "checkered" past according to several books and researchers, and several others on this semi-public forum might not have been aware of this information. Now they are, or should be if they check those links provided.

Here you go on the 22 points (taken as a collective set) though:

1. Verifiable, sourced technical specifications on all actual cameras used to take the "forensic-quality" footage in question is where?

2. Verifiable references for software used and diagram/list of all processing steps used in the analysis is where again (for independent, scientific evaluation/verification)?

3. Verifiable, sourced chain of custody of "video evidence" in toto is precisely what again?
------
4. Operation Mockingbird and compromised mainstream media- ALREADY GIVEN
Post #14 on another thread
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10747768

Post #27 this thread
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758841

Post #51 this thread
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758907

Post #64, 69, 73 this thread...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758948
------
5. Limitations inherent in video camera and recording circuitry, frame rate, compressed [esp. internet video], loss of information, editing, etc.
Post #5
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10755831

6. What exactly is the significance/relevance of a handful of video captures in the larger scope of Amerikan and International Geopolitics post-9/11? Don't we already have copious other "official" government documentation and quantitatively-analyzable data (some already in the Congressional and US Court records) that has been already and repeatedly shown to be incorrect, incomplete, questionable, omitted, and/or outright lies? So a few cameramen and the corporate-controlled media lied- so what? I've known firsthand that the US Government is willing to kill its own and lie/obfuscate for years if not decades. What do these captures add? [See #3 above]
Reason for edit: Re-numbered split points


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 26 2008, 12:46 PM
Post #103


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 813
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 25 2008, 11:48 PM)
Aldo, I think you should read this paper on false memory.

What is your point?

QUOTE
You're right about considering "the improbability" of witness accounts.

Improbability is 7-9 USA Today reporters and editors on a less than 1/4 stretch of highway.


QUOTE
The WTC witnesses claim to have seen something impossible - an airplane colliding with a steel and concrete tower without showing any signs of damage at all. Not one video shows one tiny bit of damage occurring to either the airplane or the building.

Not one.

That's why they look fake.

Impossible?

You are a conspiracy theorist Ace or something else entirely.

No one with any logic, knowledge of aircraft, scientific background, or professional CGI background will endorse your theories or agree with you.

What makes it impossible? The fact that you can't understand that a pressurized cabin, pressurized wings, and pressurized forward bulkhead flying into hollow steel lattice workings @ 600 mph is not just a"hollow tube" against an 'impervious indestructible wall'.

It looks fake to conspiracy theorists with too much time on their hands and over active imaginations who stare too long at footage, not to me.


--------------------
...can't get me down




acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 03:08 PM
Post #104


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Please explain how the right wing of the passenger jet goes past the wall, yet no damage to the wall has yet occurred, but how damage to that portion of the wall does occur, at some time after the wing passes.

Explain why none of the videos show any damage occurring to either the airplane OR the wall, and why the portions of video that would show it have been edited away.

Then please explain how the puffball appears below the left wing in one video, and above the left wing in another video.

Then please explain why there is no plane in the wide shot of Chopper 5.

Then please explain what the exiting object was, and how this object could possibly attain a size and shape indistinguishable from the nose of a 767.

All of the evidence for your review of these questions is present in the OP.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker





dMole
Nov 26 2008, 03:30 PM
Post #105


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 25 2008, 11:59 PM)
Here you go on the 22 points (taken as a collective set) though:

1. Verifiable, sourced technical specifications on all actual cameras used to take the "forensic-quality" footage in question is where?

2. Verifiable references for software used and diagram/list of all processing steps used in the analysis is where again (for independent, scientific evaluation/verification)?

3. Verifiable, sourced chain of custody of "video evidence" in toto is precisely what again?
------
... [the OP is a trivial (in the mathematics 2b sense) point already made several times on this thread by several posters]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trivial
------
5. Limitations inherent in video camera and recording circuitry, frame rate, compressed [esp. internet video], loss of information, editing, etc.
Post #5
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10755831
Ace, in order to properly consider your new questions and the OP, now let's add:

7. So the chronological amount of time and number of frames that were never filmed in any of these alleged sources totals to how many milliseconds (or minutes/hours)?

8. What are the optical properties of the camera lenses used, precise filming locations, and circuit "capture" response times in the camera/recorder combination "loops" involved? [Related to my #1 and #5 above, in the interests of a "forensic" investigation]


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





dMole
Nov 26 2008, 03:38 PM
Post #106


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



Reiterating the OP for everyone's benefit,
QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 12 2008, 11:30 AM)
Two hypotheses have emerged to explain this:

• The real airplane hypothesis – A real Boeing 767 airplane flew into the tower.

• The video composite hypothesis – The jet crash was faked by inserting airplane images into otherwise authentic video footage.

Objective and Methods

Analyze the available videos, consider the principles of video compositing, Newtonian Physics, logic, and common sense to see which hypothesis prevails.
[bold emphasis above mine- d, but let's now add Quantum Mechanics, optics, and high-speed electronics knowledge to the above as well.]


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 05:18 PM
Post #107


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



We can't know the technical specs of every camera, because we don't even know who shot the videos, in some cases. In other cases, such as Naudet and Hezarkhani, they won't talk.
However, we have a more reliable method of testing resolution in some cases anyway. For example, in Hezarkhani. We know there is far more than enough resolution to see the big gaping hole in the side of WTC2, because a later sequence, from the same video, at the same zoom, shows the hole very plainly.

Therefore we know that there was more than enough resolution to see the hole at the time the right wing passed the wall, irrespective of the technical specs, and of the precise location.

On "chain of custody", we know that the Hezarkhani, Fairbanks, Naudet, Park Foreman all come from official news sources. Your question clearly implies that without proper chain of custody, the evidence is worthless. This is absolutely false in this case, because evidence tampering is exactly the issue.

Fake videos are not good for proving the existence of an airplane, but they are VERY good for proving video fakery.

I can appreciate that you all would like to disregard the evidence I have presented, but it's not going to work.

Please refute my 22 points, or admit that there were no planes. My thesis and plane crashes are mutually exclusive.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker





dMole
Nov 26 2008, 06:37 PM
Post #108


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 26 2008, 02:18 PM)
On "chain of custody", we know that the Hezarkhani, Fairbanks, Naudet, Park Foreman all come from official news sources. Your question clearly implies that without proper chain of custody, the evidence is worthless. This is absolutely false in this case, because evidence tampering is exactly the issue.

Fake videos are not good for proving the existence of an airplane, but they are VERY good for proving video fakery.

I can appreciate that you all would like to disregard the evidence I have presented, but it's not going to work.

Please refute my 22 points, or admit that there were no planes. My thesis and plane crashes are mutually exclusive.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker
Well Ace, now you're just getting circular (I can quote you from what I read up thread if needed) and either missing my point(s) or refusing to read/acknowledge what I have already written again.

I'm still trying to establish the "validity" of what you have repeatedly termed "evidence" and referred to in your very first post as "otherwise authentic video footage."

Getting "scientific" if you will:

I. Let X= the total milliseconds of "unquestionable" "authentic video footage."
II. Let Y= the total milliseconds of video footage deemed "fake" by Ace Baker.
III. Let Z= the chronological time frame elapsed between the start and finish of the WTC events in question- it's okay if you just give me a begin and end time there- I'm quite effective with spreadsheet functions.

The problem is that my spreadsheet and I are waiting for actual values of X, Y, and Z before I can assign a weighted credibility function to the "evidence" presented in the 22 points above. (It likely won't be anywhere near or above 50% for video "evidence" BTW).

In laymans' terms, what percentage of the "time" picture are we not looking at here? [In electrical engineering it is much like a "duty cycle" if you will.]

Apparently you missed where I (and others) agreed with you on my VF point #4 above (quite common in these NPT/VF discussions for whatever reasons I have noticed). I don't see where your original thesis established conclusively a commercial B767-200 transport [I'm assuming UA175/WTC2 South here, that my research indicates has technical specifications of B767-222 #N612UA B# 21873, PW JT9D-7R4D, Mode 3A 1470 > 3020 > 3321].

Perhaps you can clarify or amend the "Boeing 767" part and eventually provide actual scientific evidence (including the quantitative amount of chronological time missing from your collective 22 points.) Until then, I will continue to refute each and every single one of your 22 points in toto as they have been fallaciously-based and conclusions already drawn upon a known incomplete data set. I'm still kind of stuck on the first few posts/first page here, truth be known (and I do have evidence of absence of a complete set of photographic data as you have already admitted, by definition and properties of [an assumed NTSC ~30. frame/second here] "video" camera).

I have also noticed repeated attempts above (and on other threads) to control how we do our research here, how we draw our own conclusions, and in what terminology we are allowed to use. That's either agenda-based or simply offensive IMHO Ace. (BTW, my acronym usage above comes from years of professional engineering experience and isn't likely to change in the interests of efficiency, at least on an internet forum).

Thank you.

EDIT: We can't reasonably or prudently move on to the new questions posed in post #104 above if many of us are still evaluating page 1 and the completeness of the data set offered, now can we?

EDIT2: The ratios (X/Z) and (Y/Z) should sum up considerably less than 1.000 (as they were reported to come from "frame rate" video footage). This is the crux of the "evidence" issue that I re-stated in #7 above.


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 08:21 PM
Post #109


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Mole,

Your algebraic construction is absolutely meaningless. Anyone can create a ratio of any two values by putting one number upstairs and another number downstairs. It does not mean that the two values have ANY relationship to one another.

There are only two possibilities: Either the airplane videos depict a real airplane, or else they were composited.

The issue is video compositing. Dismissing the video evidence because the videos were faked would be like dismissing the ledger books in a fraud case because the accountant made bogus entries. The bogus entries ARE the case.

It would be like dismissing the checks in a case about forged checks. The bogus checks ARE the case.

It would be like dismissing the currency in a case about counterfeiting. The bogus bills ARE the case.

The bogus 9/11 videos ARE the case.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker











dMole
Nov 26 2008, 09:13 PM
Post #110


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 26 2008, 05:21 PM)
Mole,

Your algebraic construction is absolutely meaningless.
In Ace Baker's apparently less-educated [than mine] opinion.

I don't necessarily like the Wiki, but start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory

Specifically, weighted average or mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_mean

http://www.clascalc.com/statistics.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

"Statistics is a mathematical science pertaining to the collection, analysis, interpretation or explanation, and presentation of data."
QUOTE
Anyone can create a ratio of any two values by putting one number upstairs and another number downstairs. It does not mean that the two values have ANY relationship to one another.
Actually it does, by definition Ace. See also fraction and percentage (but I prefer the decimal flavor myself).

http://www.answers.com/topic/ratio
"Mathematics. A relationship between two quantities, normally expressed as the quotient of one divided by the other: The ratio of 7 to 4 is written 7:4 or 7/4"
QUOTE
There are only two possibilities: Either the airplane videos depict a real airplane, or else they were composited.
In Ace Baker's opinion (which is noted) and is inconsistent with the original theses that I quoted recently above. It is also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

"The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, or bifurcation) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking."

QUOTE
The issue is video compositing. Dismissing the video evidence because the videos were faked would be like dismissing the ledger books in a fraud case because the accountant made bogus entries. The bogus entries ARE the case.

It would be like dismissing the checks in a case about forged checks. The bogus checks ARE the case.

It would be like dismissing the currency in a case about counterfeiting. The bogus bills ARE the case.

The bogus 9/11 videos ARE the case.
Actually, the proper analogy would be me not assigning 100.0000% credibility "weight" to ledger books that have had an unknown but clearly substantial number of pages ripped out by unknown persons (as I am doing above with the unknown missing frame count(s) ). As loose checks and fiat currency bills would be of unknown number and presumably "random" sequence, I find those to be a poor analogy to [expectedly] sequential video/film recording media. I suppose one could in theory choose to argue the checks and currency point- but why?

Your oft-cited "case," "proof," "data," and your "evidence" are far from convincing or irrefutable to me (and now looks to be a few others on this thread), and as you requested elsewhere, I have refuted your "case" accordingly above. Repeating yourself in overly-ambitious absolutisms isn't going to change that fact.

Ace Baker Spam, Consolidated from other areas of forum, merged, moved here, post #7:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758892

You made your claims Ace, I refuted them, and explained why scientifically with sources. As I admitted VF and missing/dubious "evidence" already more than once, the burden of [the now remaining claimed NPT] proof is in your court Ace. Again, your anonymous photogs and editors might have missed a frame or two... The "evidence" has been judged accordingly, and I don't think I ever "dismissed" it 100.000%- that was Ace's choice of verbiage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

"Burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the ordinary rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains."

And Ace one more thing...

My username here is "dMole" which you are welcome to abbreviate "d" or "dM"- I have discussed this repeatedly at this forum and with the staff when I joined here, but I don't need to explain myself to you either. You are free to speculate privately whatever it might mean and will likely be incorrect. Please be advised accordingly in the future.


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 09:23 PM
Post #111


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



That's hilarious. In your world, dividing two numbers creates a relationship between them?

LOL.

Let's see.

I own 5 computers. I ate two carrots today. Therefore the ratio of computers to eaten carrots is 5/2. The relationship between them is what exactly?

I did indeed present a dichotomy: Either real planes crashes at WTC, or else they were video composites.

This is certainly NOT a false dichotomy, it is a correct dichotomy. If you would like to present a third option, go for it.

Steven Jones already tried the "fake video AND real planes" gambit. He gave up quickly.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/06/video...nes-owning.html







dMole
Nov 26 2008, 09:52 PM
Post #112


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 26 2008, 06:23 PM)
That's hilarious. In your world, dividing two numbers creates a relationship between them?

LOL.

Let's see.

I own 5 computers. I ate two carrots today. Therefore the ratio of computers to eaten carrots is 5/2. The relationship between them is what exactly?
Aside from the fact you're comparing ApplesTM and carrots Ace....

It's not hilarious, and it's not just "my world"- it has been inhabited by the mathematicians of the ages, several of whom I have studied. Case in point:

X=30
"fake" Y=70
Z=100

(X/Z) + ("the fake" Y/Z) = 1.00
-----
A=3/10
"fake" B = 7/10
C = 1

(A/C) + ("fake" B/C) = 1
-----
This could be interpreted as 100.00% of the picture sometimes (but I'm quite sure that it wouldn't necessarily do so in my video frame capture ratios above, based upon my knowledge of electronic systems). I think Ace has missed my request(s) for T, U, V, and/or W here though.

But X didn't equal A!
Z didn't equal C!

What happened?


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





dMole
Nov 26 2008, 10:04 PM
Post #113


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 12 2008, 11:30 AM)
The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites

by Ace Baker

...
Two hypotheses have emerged to explain this:

• The real airplane hypothesis – A real Boeing 767 airplane flew into the tower.

• The video composite hypothesis – The jet crash was faked by inserting airplane images into otherwise authentic video footage.

Objective and Methods

Analyze the available videos, consider the principles of video compositing, Newtonian Physics, logic, and common sense to see which hypothesis prevails.
On dichotomies,

The dichotomy quoted and bolded directly above in this thread's post #1:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758694

Has now apparently very subtly evolved into this by post #109:
"There are only two possibilities: Either the airplane videos depict a real airplane, or else they were composited."

Ace, I'll see you and call your this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

"Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion. Moving the goalpost can also take the form of reverse feature creep, in which features are eliminated from a product, and the goal of the project is redefined in such a way as to exclude the eliminated features."

Back to burden of OP... conclusive scientific proof refuting "A real Boeing 767 [commercial transport- that part is important] airplane flew into the tower..." (which I have never really believed BTW Ace).


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 10:33 PM
Post #114


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



dMole,

It's quite obvious you're spewing pseudoscience gobbledygook.

1. I haven't moved the goalposts. I begin my treatise by stating two hypotheses - Real Planes and Composites. I explain in detail how and why they are mutually exclusive. If you think there is a third option, please feel free to bring it.

2. Your ratios are meaningless nonsense, and you know it. If you want to explain what you think you are showing, I'll listen.





dMole
Yesterday, 12:09 AM
Post #115


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 26 2008, 07:33 PM)
dMole,

It's quite obvious you're spewing pseudoscience gobbledygook.

1. I haven't moved the goalposts. I begin my treatise by stating two hypotheses - Real Planes and Composites. I explain in detail how and why they are mutually exclusive. If you think there is a third option, please feel free to bring it.

2. Your ratios are meaningless nonsense, and you know it. If you want to explain what you think you are showing, I'll listen.
QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 26 2008, 03:37 PM)
Getting "scientific" if you will:

I. Let X= the total milliseconds of "unquestionable" "authentic video footage."
II. Let Y= the total milliseconds of video footage deemed "fake" by Ace Baker.
III. Let Z= the chronological time frame elapsed between the start and finish of the WTC events in question- it's okay if you just give me a begin and end time there- I'm quite effective with spreadsheet functions.

EDIT2: The ratios (X/Z) and (Y/Z) should sum up considerably less than 1.000 (as they were reported to come from "frame rate" video footage). This is the crux of the "evidence" issue that I re-stated in #7 above.
Although Ace has hereby and henceforth deemed algebra, statistics, probability, number theory and several "pure" sciences like physics and chemistry as "pseudo-science gobbledygook" in one arbirtrary wave of the hand- try reading my above post(s) this time Ace. (at least the "gobble" part is in season here in the US this week).

Then go back and take a closer look at that definition of "ratio" that I linked above- note it explicitly includes the word "relationship." Here are some visual aids for you and a different source for that definition.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/graphicor...ifs/10small.GIF


http://faculty.kutztown.edu/schaeffe/Graph...omary_Ruler.gif


http://faculty.kutztown.edu/schaeffe/Graph...ers/Rulers.html

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/63884.html

More "meaningless nonsense pseudo-science gobbledygook" according to Ace Baker:

Percentage
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/61067.html

Mole Fraction
http://chemistry.about.com/od/dictionaries.../defmolfrac.htm

Partial pressure
http://www.answers.com/topic/partial-pressure

I recall asking more than once what percentage of the WTC event chronology (that I assigned the variable Z above and offered to calculate for Ace) that has not been accounted for (up to and including this very post)? I was quizzing Ace a bit and dropped a few dozen hints, and mainly got rhetorical sophistry and what I'd interpret as vague insults for my requested critique of Ace's original dichotomy (which again for the record stated

"Two hypotheses have emerged to explain this:

• The real airplane hypothesis – A real Boeing 767 airplane flew into the tower.")

That's at least the 2nd time you've evaded the "impact" proof part recently Ace- I usually keep a fairly close count on such things.

I suppose I'll leave you to study on what I have posted above for a while- please use your reading time wisely or else don't quote/address me specifically further on this thread Ace- it has become tedious, I'm afraid. I know what you are seeking on this thread, and you may not enjoy my further replies if I choose to link some of the older "NPT" research here Ace.

And Quest was right in his allusion to flies and honey. My $0.02

[Also, I'm on a long distance phone call right now that will take a while.]


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





acebaker
Yesterday, 12:38 AM
Post #116


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



I'm not quarreling with math, genius. I'm quarreling with you. Citing definitions of terms doesn't mean anything.

I think you're asking about the missing time in the CNN Ghostplane video. There is some period of time edited out of this sequence. After the fireball begins expanding, the video cuts to a shot of the smoldering hole in the wall. I have no way of knowing how much time was cut out, that's the point.

AFAIK, there is no video record of the south face of WTC2, during the time the hole was forming. If you have any video or photographic evidence of the hole actually forming, please bring it.





acebaker
Yesterday, 01:23 AM
Post #117


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



I mean, is this really all you pilots can muster?




dMole
Yesterday, 03:06 AM
Post #118


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 26 2008, 09:38 PM)
I'm not quarreling with math, genius. I'm quarreling with you. Citing definitions of terms doesn't mean anything.

I think you're asking about the missing time in the CNN Ghostplane video. There is some period of time edited out of this sequence. After the fireball begins expanding, the video cuts to a shot of the smoldering hole in the wall. I have no way of knowing how much time was cut out, that's the point.

AFAIK, there is no video record of the south face of WTC2, during the time the hole was forming. If you have any video or photographic evidence of the hole actually forming, please bring it.
Actually clarifying the common terms used by all participants on a thread is often helpful to those with some reading comprehension ability there, genius. The expression is "on the same page," I believe. You are starting to understand a tiny bit of my post(s) (the red part above), so props for that much.

The post was #105 above Ace, where I clearly stated
-------------
"Ace, in order to properly consider your new questions and the OP, now let's add:

7. So the chronological amount of time and number of frames that were never filmed in any of these alleged sources totals to how many milliseconds (or minutes/hours)?

8. What are the optical properties of the camera lenses used, precise filming locations, and circuit "capture" response times in the camera/recorder combination "loops" involved? [Related to my #1 and #5 above, in the interests of a "forensic" investigation]"
-----------
Not apples, not carrots, not computers. [Milli]seconds and/or frames never recorded by any video source, Ace (not CNN Ghostplane video whatever that is). This is the portion, percentage, ratio, "chunk," fraction, etc. of the "pie" that I've been after from the very start. Then we can move forward and analyze what percentage is "otherwise authentic video footage" to use Ace's terminology, or my 'X/Z' above. Finally, I would like to objectively look at what percentage is "fake" according to Mr. Ace Baker (that would be 'Y/Z' above).

Most importantly to me, I'd like to subtract both of those ratios from 1.000 (or percentages from 100.00% if you prefer) to put a number on the percentage that we aren't seeing in any of those video frames. I offered to let you choose the start/stop times and calculate the elapsed time for all WTC events 'Z' for you, but I think we should probably try to synchronize that timeframe a little more carefully now. The seismic events are fairly substantial. The shorthand/equation: I'm after 1.000 - (X/Z + Y/Z) from a few posts ago- do I need to link/quote it again?

To put it in much less mathematical terms for you Ace,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gestalt

"Noun 1. gestalt - a configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that it cannot be described merely as a sum of its parts"

Sorry, but I can't read it for some (I can only bring them the information in this online format). I understand the "parts" that your 22 points sum to Ace (although I might take issue with those individually too eventually if I still have any interest and you exhibit some civility around the forum).

Unfortunately, you aren't looking at the "whole pie" of 9/11 evidence- this is why your 22 points in toto are weak- they lack a solid foundation. I was hoping to help you find out how many pieces of the pie you missed, and I see at least 2 more insults above.

QUOTE
I mean, is this really all you pilots can muster?- Ace Baker 10:23 P.M. above

On the pilots- my money is on little interest, not "really ... all mustered" BTW. I actually regret spending my time to try to help your research with constructive criticism/review at this point myself.

Good evening and Happy Thanksgiving, Ace.


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





dMole
Yesterday, 08:23 AM
Post #119


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 26 2008, 03:37 PM)
I have also noticed repeated attempts above (and on other threads) to control how we do our research here, how we draw our own conclusions, and in what terminology we are allowed to use. That's either agenda-based or simply offensive IMHO Ace. (BTW, my acronym usage above comes from years of professional engineering experience and isn't likely to change in the interests of efficiency, at least on an internet forum).
Uh, yeah, about that QUICKLY-TYPED part...

I just and personally noticed that I skipped a phrase or two...

Here is what I personally intended, Mr. Ace:

"I have also noticed repeated attempts above (and on other threads) by Mr. "Ace Baker" to control how we do our research here, how we draw our own conclusions, and in what terminology we are allowed to use. That's either agenda-based or simply offensive IMHO Ace. (BTW, my acronym usage above comes from years of professional engineering experience and isn't likely to change in the interests of efficiency, at least on an internet forum).








--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





dMole
Yesterday, 09:52 AM
Post #120


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 25 2008, 11:00 PM)
@dmole -

Why don't you instead "go on" and point out the errors in my treatise. If real planes hit the towers, there must be plenty scientific errors in my work, at least about one per each of the 22 data.
Just recording "post #101" for posterity......


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





« Next Oldest · Alternative Theories · Next Newest »


7 Pages « < 4 5 6 7 >

1 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: acebaker



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2008 - 03:39 AM



All views expressed in this forum are not necessarily the views of pilotsfor911truth.org

Powered By IP.Board 2.3.5 © 2008 IPS, Inc.


Pilots For 9/11 Truth Pilots For 9/11 Truth Portal Forum Rules Help Search Members Calendar



Guests Please Register For Full Forum Access. Thank You.
(you must be logged in to post and view entire forum)

Logged in as: acebaker ( Log Out )
My Controls · View New Posts · My Assistant · My Friends · 1 New Messages
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Research > Alternative Theories
7 Pages « < 4 5 6 7 >
Ace Baker - Video Composite Theory Set, merged threads
Options
acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 02:00 AM
Post #101


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



@dmole -

Why don't you instead "go on" and point out the errors in my treatise. If real planes hit the towers, there must be plenty scientific errors in my work, at least about one per each of the 22 data.





dMole
Nov 26 2008, 02:59 AM
Post #102


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 25 2008, 11:00 PM)
@dmole -

Why don't you instead "go on" and point out the errors in my treatise. If real planes hit the towers, there must be plenty scientific errors in my work, at least about one per each of the 22 data.
I was replying to your [slightly-off-topic IMHO] interjection of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus into the discussion and her somewhat questionable associations based upon my previous research, there Ace. False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) has a very "checkered" past according to several books and researchers, and several others on this semi-public forum might not have been aware of this information. Now they are, or should be if they check those links provided.

Here you go on the 22 points (taken as a collective set) though:

1. Verifiable, sourced technical specifications on all actual cameras used to take the "forensic-quality" footage in question is where?

2. Verifiable references for software used and diagram/list of all processing steps used in the analysis is where again (for independent, scientific evaluation/verification)?

3. Verifiable, sourced chain of custody of "video evidence" in toto is precisely what again?
------
4. Operation Mockingbird and compromised mainstream media- ALREADY GIVEN
Post #14 on another thread
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10747768

Post #27 this thread
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758841

Post #51 this thread
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758907

Post #64, 69, 73 this thread...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758948
------
5. Limitations inherent in video camera and recording circuitry, frame rate, compressed [esp. internet video], loss of information, editing, etc.
Post #5
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10755831

6. What exactly is the significance/relevance of a handful of video captures in the larger scope of Amerikan and International Geopolitics post-9/11? Don't we already have copious other "official" government documentation and quantitatively-analyzable data (some already in the Congressional and US Court records) that has been already and repeatedly shown to be incorrect, incomplete, questionable, omitted, and/or outright lies? So a few cameramen and the corporate-controlled media lied- so what? I've known firsthand that the US Government is willing to kill its own and lie/obfuscate for years if not decades. What do these captures add? [See #3 above]
Reason for edit: Re-numbered split points


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 26 2008, 12:46 PM
Post #103


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 813
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 25 2008, 11:48 PM)
Aldo, I think you should read this paper on false memory.

What is your point?

QUOTE
You're right about considering "the improbability" of witness accounts.

Improbability is 7-9 USA Today reporters and editors on a less than 1/4 stretch of highway.


QUOTE
The WTC witnesses claim to have seen something impossible - an airplane colliding with a steel and concrete tower without showing any signs of damage at all. Not one video shows one tiny bit of damage occurring to either the airplane or the building.

Not one.

That's why they look fake.

Impossible?

You are a conspiracy theorist Ace or something else entirely.

No one with any logic, knowledge of aircraft, scientific background, or professional CGI background will endorse your theories or agree with you.

What makes it impossible? The fact that you can't understand that a pressurized cabin, pressurized wings, and pressurized forward bulkhead flying into hollow steel lattice workings @ 600 mph is not just a"hollow tube" against an 'impervious indestructible wall'.

It looks fake to conspiracy theorists with too much time on their hands and over active imaginations who stare too long at footage, not to me.


--------------------
...can't get me down




acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 03:08 PM
Post #104


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Please explain how the right wing of the passenger jet goes past the wall, yet no damage to the wall has yet occurred, but how damage to that portion of the wall does occur, at some time after the wing passes.

Explain why none of the videos show any damage occurring to either the airplane OR the wall, and why the portions of video that would show it have been edited away.

Then please explain how the puffball appears below the left wing in one video, and above the left wing in another video.

Then please explain why there is no plane in the wide shot of Chopper 5.

Then please explain what the exiting object was, and how this object could possibly attain a size and shape indistinguishable from the nose of a 767.

All of the evidence for your review of these questions is present in the OP.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker





dMole
Nov 26 2008, 03:30 PM
Post #105


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 25 2008, 11:59 PM)
Here you go on the 22 points (taken as a collective set) though:

1. Verifiable, sourced technical specifications on all actual cameras used to take the "forensic-quality" footage in question is where?

2. Verifiable references for software used and diagram/list of all processing steps used in the analysis is where again (for independent, scientific evaluation/verification)?

3. Verifiable, sourced chain of custody of "video evidence" in toto is precisely what again?
------
... [the OP is a trivial (in the mathematics 2b sense) point already made several times on this thread by several posters]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trivial
------
5. Limitations inherent in video camera and recording circuitry, frame rate, compressed [esp. internet video], loss of information, editing, etc.
Post #5
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10755831
Ace, in order to properly consider your new questions and the OP, now let's add:

7. So the chronological amount of time and number of frames that were never filmed in any of these alleged sources totals to how many milliseconds (or minutes/hours)?

8. What are the optical properties of the camera lenses used, precise filming locations, and circuit "capture" response times in the camera/recorder combination "loops" involved? [Related to my #1 and #5 above, in the interests of a "forensic" investigation]


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





dMole
Nov 26 2008, 03:38 PM
Post #106


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



Reiterating the OP for everyone's benefit,
QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 12 2008, 11:30 AM)
Two hypotheses have emerged to explain this:

• The real airplane hypothesis – A real Boeing 767 airplane flew into the tower.

• The video composite hypothesis – The jet crash was faked by inserting airplane images into otherwise authentic video footage.

Objective and Methods

Analyze the available videos, consider the principles of video compositing, Newtonian Physics, logic, and common sense to see which hypothesis prevails.
[bold emphasis above mine- d, but let's now add Quantum Mechanics, optics, and high-speed electronics knowledge to the above as well.]


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 05:18 PM
Post #107


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



We can't know the technical specs of every camera, because we don't even know who shot the videos, in some cases. In other cases, such as Naudet and Hezarkhani, they won't talk.
However, we have a more reliable method of testing resolution in some cases anyway. For example, in Hezarkhani. We know there is far more than enough resolution to see the big gaping hole in the side of WTC2, because a later sequence, from the same video, at the same zoom, shows the hole very plainly.

Therefore we know that there was more than enough resolution to see the hole at the time the right wing passed the wall, irrespective of the technical specs, and of the precise location.

On "chain of custody", we know that the Hezarkhani, Fairbanks, Naudet, Park Foreman all come from official news sources. Your question clearly implies that without proper chain of custody, the evidence is worthless. This is absolutely false in this case, because evidence tampering is exactly the issue.

Fake videos are not good for proving the existence of an airplane, but they are VERY good for proving video fakery.

I can appreciate that you all would like to disregard the evidence I have presented, but it's not going to work.

Please refute my 22 points, or admit that there were no planes. My thesis and plane crashes are mutually exclusive.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker





dMole
Nov 26 2008, 06:37 PM
Post #108


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 26 2008, 02:18 PM)
On "chain of custody", we know that the Hezarkhani, Fairbanks, Naudet, Park Foreman all come from official news sources. Your question clearly implies that without proper chain of custody, the evidence is worthless. This is absolutely false in this case, because evidence tampering is exactly the issue.

Fake videos are not good for proving the existence of an airplane, but they are VERY good for proving video fakery.

I can appreciate that you all would like to disregard the evidence I have presented, but it's not going to work.

Please refute my 22 points, or admit that there were no planes. My thesis and plane crashes are mutually exclusive.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker
Well Ace, now you're just getting circular (I can quote you from what I read up thread if needed) and either missing my point(s) or refusing to read/acknowledge what I have already written again.

I'm still trying to establish the "validity" of what you have repeatedly termed "evidence" and referred to in your very first post as "otherwise authentic video footage."

Getting "scientific" if you will:

I. Let X= the total milliseconds of "unquestionable" "authentic video footage."
II. Let Y= the total milliseconds of video footage deemed "fake" by Ace Baker.
III. Let Z= the chronological time frame elapsed between the start and finish of the WTC events in question- it's okay if you just give me a begin and end time there- I'm quite effective with spreadsheet functions.

The problem is that my spreadsheet and I are waiting for actual values of X, Y, and Z before I can assign a weighted credibility function to the "evidence" presented in the 22 points above. (It likely won't be anywhere near or above 50% for video "evidence" BTW).

In laymans' terms, what percentage of the "time" picture are we not looking at here? [In electrical engineering it is much like a "duty cycle" if you will.]

Apparently you missed where I (and others) agreed with you on my VF point #4 above (quite common in these NPT/VF discussions for whatever reasons I have noticed). I don't see where your original thesis established conclusively a commercial B767-200 transport [I'm assuming UA175/WTC2 South here, that my research indicates has technical specifications of B767-222 #N612UA B# 21873, PW JT9D-7R4D, Mode 3A 1470 > 3020 > 3321].

Perhaps you can clarify or amend the "Boeing 767" part and eventually provide actual scientific evidence (including the quantitative amount of chronological time missing from your collective 22 points.) Until then, I will continue to refute each and every single one of your 22 points in toto as they have been fallaciously-based and conclusions already drawn upon a known incomplete data set. I'm still kind of stuck on the first few posts/first page here, truth be known (and I do have evidence of absence of a complete set of photographic data as you have already admitted, by definition and properties of [an assumed NTSC ~30. frame/second here] "video" camera).

I have also noticed repeated attempts above (and on other threads) to control how we do our research here, how we draw our own conclusions, and in what terminology we are allowed to use. That's either agenda-based or simply offensive IMHO Ace. (BTW, my acronym usage above comes from years of professional engineering experience and isn't likely to change in the interests of efficiency, at least on an internet forum).

Thank you.

EDIT: We can't reasonably or prudently move on to the new questions posed in post #104 above if many of us are still evaluating page 1 and the completeness of the data set offered, now can we?

EDIT2: The ratios (X/Z) and (Y/Z) should sum up considerably less than 1.000 (as they were reported to come from "frame rate" video footage). This is the crux of the "evidence" issue that I re-stated in #7 above.


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 08:21 PM
Post #109


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Mole,

Your algebraic construction is absolutely meaningless. Anyone can create a ratio of any two values by putting one number upstairs and another number downstairs. It does not mean that the two values have ANY relationship to one another.

There are only two possibilities: Either the airplane videos depict a real airplane, or else they were composited.

The issue is video compositing. Dismissing the video evidence because the videos were faked would be like dismissing the ledger books in a fraud case because the accountant made bogus entries. The bogus entries ARE the case.

It would be like dismissing the checks in a case about forged checks. The bogus checks ARE the case.

It would be like dismissing the currency in a case about counterfeiting. The bogus bills ARE the case.

The bogus 9/11 videos ARE the case.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker











dMole
Nov 26 2008, 09:13 PM
Post #110


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 26 2008, 05:21 PM)
Mole,

Your algebraic construction is absolutely meaningless.
In Ace Baker's apparently less-educated [than mine] opinion.

I don't necessarily like the Wiki, but start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory

Specifically, weighted average or mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_mean

http://www.clascalc.com/statistics.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

"Statistics is a mathematical science pertaining to the collection, analysis, interpretation or explanation, and presentation of data."
QUOTE
Anyone can create a ratio of any two values by putting one number upstairs and another number downstairs. It does not mean that the two values have ANY relationship to one another.
Actually it does, by definition Ace. See also fraction and percentage (but I prefer the decimal flavor myself).

http://www.answers.com/topic/ratio
"Mathematics. A relationship between two quantities, normally expressed as the quotient of one divided by the other: The ratio of 7 to 4 is written 7:4 or 7/4"
QUOTE
There are only two possibilities: Either the airplane videos depict a real airplane, or else they were composited.
In Ace Baker's opinion (which is noted) and is inconsistent with the original theses that I quoted recently above. It is also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

"The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, or bifurcation) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking."

QUOTE
The issue is video compositing. Dismissing the video evidence because the videos were faked would be like dismissing the ledger books in a fraud case because the accountant made bogus entries. The bogus entries ARE the case.

It would be like dismissing the checks in a case about forged checks. The bogus checks ARE the case.

It would be like dismissing the currency in a case about counterfeiting. The bogus bills ARE the case.

The bogus 9/11 videos ARE the case.
Actually, the proper analogy would be me not assigning 100.0000% credibility "weight" to ledger books that have had an unknown but clearly substantial number of pages ripped out by unknown persons (as I am doing above with the unknown missing frame count(s) ). As loose checks and fiat currency bills would be of unknown number and presumably "random" sequence, I find those to be a poor analogy to [expectedly] sequential video/film recording media. I suppose one could in theory choose to argue the checks and currency point- but why?

Your oft-cited "case," "proof," "data," and your "evidence" are far from convincing or irrefutable to me (and now looks to be a few others on this thread), and as you requested elsewhere, I have refuted your "case" accordingly above. Repeating yourself in overly-ambitious absolutisms isn't going to change that fact.

Ace Baker Spam, Consolidated from other areas of forum, merged, moved here, post #7:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758892

You made your claims Ace, I refuted them, and explained why scientifically with sources. As I admitted VF and missing/dubious "evidence" already more than once, the burden of [the now remaining claimed NPT] proof is in your court Ace. Again, your anonymous photogs and editors might have missed a frame or two... The "evidence" has been judged accordingly, and I don't think I ever "dismissed" it 100.000%- that was Ace's choice of verbiage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

"Burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the ordinary rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains."

And Ace one more thing...

My username here is "dMole" which you are welcome to abbreviate "d" or "dM"- I have discussed this repeatedly at this forum and with the staff when I joined here, but I don't need to explain myself to you either. You are free to speculate privately whatever it might mean and will likely be incorrect. Please be advised accordingly in the future.


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 09:23 PM
Post #111


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



That's hilarious. In your world, dividing two numbers creates a relationship between them?

LOL.

Let's see.

I own 5 computers. I ate two carrots today. Therefore the ratio of computers to eaten carrots is 5/2. The relationship between them is what exactly?

I did indeed present a dichotomy: Either real planes crashes at WTC, or else they were video composites.

This is certainly NOT a false dichotomy, it is a correct dichotomy. If you would like to present a third option, go for it.

Steven Jones already tried the "fake video AND real planes" gambit. He gave up quickly.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/06/video...nes-owning.html







dMole
Nov 26 2008, 09:52 PM
Post #112


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 26 2008, 06:23 PM)
That's hilarious. In your world, dividing two numbers creates a relationship between them?

LOL.

Let's see.

I own 5 computers. I ate two carrots today. Therefore the ratio of computers to eaten carrots is 5/2. The relationship between them is what exactly?
Aside from the fact you're comparing ApplesTM and carrots Ace....

It's not hilarious, and it's not just "my world"- it has been inhabited by the mathematicians of the ages, several of whom I have studied. Case in point:

X=30
"fake" Y=70
Z=100

(X/Z) + ("the fake" Y/Z) = 1.00
-----
A=3/10
"fake" B = 7/10
C = 1

(A/C) + ("fake" B/C) = 1
-----
This could be interpreted as 100.00% of the picture sometimes (but I'm quite sure that it wouldn't necessarily do so in my video frame capture ratios above, based upon my knowledge of electronic systems). I think Ace has missed my request(s) for T, U, V, and/or W here though.

But X didn't equal A!
Z didn't equal C!

What happened?


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





dMole
Nov 26 2008, 10:04 PM
Post #113


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 12 2008, 11:30 AM)
The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites

by Ace Baker

...
Two hypotheses have emerged to explain this:

• The real airplane hypothesis – A real Boeing 767 airplane flew into the tower.

• The video composite hypothesis – The jet crash was faked by inserting airplane images into otherwise authentic video footage.

Objective and Methods

Analyze the available videos, consider the principles of video compositing, Newtonian Physics, logic, and common sense to see which hypothesis prevails.
On dichotomies,

The dichotomy quoted and bolded directly above in this thread's post #1:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758694

Has now apparently very subtly evolved into this by post #109:
"There are only two possibilities: Either the airplane videos depict a real airplane, or else they were composited."

Ace, I'll see you and call your this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

"Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion. Moving the goalpost can also take the form of reverse feature creep, in which features are eliminated from a product, and the goal of the project is redefined in such a way as to exclude the eliminated features."

Back to burden of OP... conclusive scientific proof refuting "A real Boeing 767 [commercial transport- that part is important] airplane flew into the tower..." (which I have never really believed BTW Ace).


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 10:33 PM
Post #114


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



dMole,

It's quite obvious you're spewing pseudoscience gobbledygook.

1. I haven't moved the goalposts. I begin my treatise by stating two hypotheses - Real Planes and Composites. I explain in detail how and why they are mutually exclusive. If you think there is a third option, please feel free to bring it.

2. Your ratios are meaningless nonsense, and you know it. If you want to explain what you think you are showing, I'll listen.





dMole
Yesterday, 12:09 AM
Post #115


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 26 2008, 07:33 PM)
dMole,

It's quite obvious you're spewing pseudoscience gobbledygook.

1. I haven't moved the goalposts. I begin my treatise by stating two hypotheses - Real Planes and Composites. I explain in detail how and why they are mutually exclusive. If you think there is a third option, please feel free to bring it.

2. Your ratios are meaningless nonsense, and you know it. If you want to explain what you think you are showing, I'll listen.
QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 26 2008, 03:37 PM)
Getting "scientific" if you will:

I. Let X= the total milliseconds of "unquestionable" "authentic video footage."
II. Let Y= the total milliseconds of video footage deemed "fake" by Ace Baker.
III. Let Z= the chronological time frame elapsed between the start and finish of the WTC events in question- it's okay if you just give me a begin and end time there- I'm quite effective with spreadsheet functions.

EDIT2: The ratios (X/Z) and (Y/Z) should sum up considerably less than 1.000 (as they were reported to come from "frame rate" video footage). This is the crux of the "evidence" issue that I re-stated in #7 above.
Although Ace has hereby and henceforth deemed algebra, statistics, probability, number theory and several "pure" sciences like physics and chemistry as "pseudo-science gobbledygook" in one arbirtrary wave of the hand- try reading my above post(s) this time Ace. (at least the "gobble" part is in season here in the US this week).

Then go back and take a closer look at that definition of "ratio" that I linked above- note it explicitly includes the word "relationship." Here are some visual aids for you and a different source for that definition.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/graphicor...ifs/10small.GIF


http://faculty.kutztown.edu/schaeffe/Graph...omary_Ruler.gif


http://faculty.kutztown.edu/schaeffe/Graph...ers/Rulers.html

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/63884.html

More "meaningless nonsense pseudo-science gobbledygook" according to Ace Baker:

Percentage
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/61067.html

Mole Fraction
http://chemistry.about.com/od/dictionaries.../defmolfrac.htm

Partial pressure
http://www.answers.com/topic/partial-pressure

I recall asking more than once what percentage of the WTC event chronology (that I assigned the variable Z above and offered to calculate for Ace) that has not been accounted for (up to and including this very post)? I was quizzing Ace a bit and dropped a few dozen hints, and mainly got rhetorical sophistry and what I'd interpret as vague insults for my requested critique of Ace's original dichotomy (which again for the record stated

"Two hypotheses have emerged to explain this:

• The real airplane hypothesis – A real Boeing 767 airplane flew into the tower.")

That's at least the 2nd time you've evaded the "impact" proof part recently Ace- I usually keep a fairly close count on such things.

I suppose I'll leave you to study on what I have posted above for a while- please use your reading time wisely or else don't quote/address me specifically further on this thread Ace- it has become tedious, I'm afraid. I know what you are seeking on this thread, and you may not enjoy my further replies if I choose to link some of the older "NPT" research here Ace.

And Quest was right in his allusion to flies and honey. My $0.02

[Also, I'm on a long distance phone call right now that will take a while.]


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





acebaker
Yesterday, 12:38 AM
Post #116


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



I'm not quarreling with math, genius. I'm quarreling with you. Citing definitions of terms doesn't mean anything.

I think you're asking about the missing time in the CNN Ghostplane video. There is some period of time edited out of this sequence. After the fireball begins expanding, the video cuts to a shot of the smoldering hole in the wall. I have no way of knowing how much time was cut out, that's the point.

AFAIK, there is no video record of the south face of WTC2, during the time the hole was forming. If you have any video or photographic evidence of the hole actually forming, please bring it.





acebaker
Yesterday, 01:23 AM
Post #117


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



I mean, is this really all you pilots can muster?




dMole
Yesterday, 03:06 AM
Post #118


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 26 2008, 09:38 PM)
I'm not quarreling with math, genius. I'm quarreling with you. Citing definitions of terms doesn't mean anything.

I think you're asking about the missing time in the CNN Ghostplane video. There is some period of time edited out of this sequence. After the fireball begins expanding, the video cuts to a shot of the smoldering hole in the wall. I have no way of knowing how much time was cut out, that's the point.

AFAIK, there is no video record of the south face of WTC2, during the time the hole was forming. If you have any video or photographic evidence of the hole actually forming, please bring it.
Actually clarifying the common terms used by all participants on a thread is often helpful to those with some reading comprehension ability there, genius. The expression is "on the same page," I believe. You are starting to understand a tiny bit of my post(s) (the red part above), so props for that much.

The post was #105 above Ace, where I clearly stated
-------------
"Ace, in order to properly consider your new questions and the OP, now let's add:

7. So the chronological amount of time and number of frames that were never filmed in any of these alleged sources totals to how many milliseconds (or minutes/hours)?

8. What are the optical properties of the camera lenses used, precise filming locations, and circuit "capture" response times in the camera/recorder combination "loops" involved? [Related to my #1 and #5 above, in the interests of a "forensic" investigation]"
-----------
Not apples, not carrots, not computers. [Milli]seconds and/or frames never recorded by any video source, Ace (not CNN Ghostplane video whatever that is). This is the portion, percentage, ratio, "chunk," fraction, etc. of the "pie" that I've been after from the very start. Then we can move forward and analyze what percentage is "otherwise authentic video footage" to use Ace's terminology, or my 'X/Z' above. Finally, I would like to objectively look at what percentage is "fake" according to Mr. Ace Baker (that would be 'Y/Z' above).

Most importantly to me, I'd like to subtract both of those ratios from 1.000 (or percentages from 100.00% if you prefer) to put a number on the percentage that we aren't seeing in any of those video frames. I offered to let you choose the start/stop times and calculate the elapsed time for all WTC events 'Z' for you, but I think we should probably try to synchronize that timeframe a little more carefully now. The seismic events are fairly substantial. The shorthand/equation: I'm after 1.000 - (X/Z + Y/Z) from a few posts ago- do I need to link/quote it again?

To put it in much less mathematical terms for you Ace,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gestalt

"Noun 1. gestalt - a configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that it cannot be described merely as a sum of its parts"

Sorry, but I can't read it for some (I can only bring them the information in this online format). I understand the "parts" that your 22 points sum to Ace (although I might take issue with those individually too eventually if I still have any interest and you exhibit some civility around the forum).

Unfortunately, you aren't looking at the "whole pie" of 9/11 evidence- this is why your 22 points in toto are weak- they lack a solid foundation. I was hoping to help you find out how many pieces of the pie you missed, and I see at least 2 more insults above.

QUOTE
I mean, is this really all you pilots can muster?- Ace Baker 10:23 P.M. above

On the pilots- my money is on little interest, not "really ... all mustered" BTW. I actually regret spending my time to try to help your research with constructive criticism/review at this point myself.

Good evening and Happy Thanksgiving, Ace.


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





dMole
Yesterday, 08:23 AM
Post #119


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 26 2008, 03:37 PM)
I have also noticed repeated attempts above (and on other threads) to control how we do our research here, how we draw our own conclusions, and in what terminology we are allowed to use. That's either agenda-based or simply offensive IMHO Ace. (BTW, my acronym usage above comes from years of professional engineering experience and isn't likely to change in the interests of efficiency, at least on an internet forum).
Uh, yeah, about that QUICKLY-TYPED part...

I just and personally noticed that I skipped a phrase or two...

Here is what I personally intended, Mr. Ace:

"I have also noticed repeated attempts above (and on other threads) by Mr. "Ace Baker" to control how we do our research here, how we draw our own conclusions, and in what terminology we are allowed to use. That's either agenda-based or simply offensive IMHO Ace. (BTW, my acronym usage above comes from years of professional engineering experience and isn't likely to change in the interests of efficiency, at least on an internet forum).








--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





dMole
Yesterday, 09:52 AM
Post #120


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 25 2008, 11:00 PM)
@dmole -

Why don't you instead "go on" and point out the errors in my treatise. If real planes hit the towers, there must be plenty scientific errors in my work, at least about one per each of the 22 data.
Just recording "post #101" for posterity......


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





« Next Oldest · Alternative Theories · Next Newest »


7 Pages « < 4 5 6 7 >

1 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: acebaker



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2008 - 03:39 AM



All views expressed in this forum are not necessarily the views of pilotsfor911truth.org

Powered By IP.Board 2.3.5 © 2008 IPS, Inc.



Pilots For 9/11 Truth Pilots For 9/11 Truth Portal Forum Rules Help Search Members Calendar



Guests Please Register For Full Forum Access. Thank You.
(you must be logged in to post and view entire forum)

Logged in as: acebaker ( Log Out )
My Controls · View New Posts · My Assistant · My Friends · 1 New Messages
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Research > Alternative Theories
7 Pages « < 5 6 7
Ace Baker - Video Composite Theory Set, merged threads
Options
acebaker
Yesterday, 10:23 AM
Post #121


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



OK, dMole. Out of sheer amusement, let's see where you are headed.

Let's say there are 40 videos that depict an airplane. Let's say the average appearance is 1 second or 30 frames. That's 1200 frames of video that required compositing.

Let's say there is a total of 2000 hours of 9/11 video somewhere. That's 216,000,000 frames that did not require compositing.

That's a ratio of 180,000 Authentic frames of video / 1 composited frame of video.

What's your point?









dMole
Yesterday, 07:56 PM
Post #122


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



Post #115 above Ace.
QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 26 2008, 09:09 PM)
That's at least the 2nd time you've evaded the "impact" proof part recently Ace- I usually keep a fairly close count on such things.

I suppose I'll leave you to study on what I have posted above for a while- please use your reading time wisely or else don't quote/address me specifically further on this thread Ace- it has become tedious, I'm afraid. I know what you are seeking on this thread, and you may not enjoy my further replies if I choose to link some of the older "NPT" research here Ace.

And Quest was right in his allusion to flies and honey. My $0.02

EDIT: For INP:
"In laymans' terms, what percentage of the "time" picture are we not looking at here?"


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





acebaker
Today, 01:29 AM
Post #123


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



What percentage of the time picture are we not looking at here?

I have no idea what you mean.

What is a "time picture"?







dMole
Today, 02:06 AM
Post #124


Consultant


Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,762
Joined: 2-October 07
From: Waaay out west...
Member No.: 2,294



@ Admins: request to lock this pointless, circular thread. [Isn't it a research forum after all...]

Ding- I'm done here!

Peace out!


--------------------
"Well I'm not ready to make nice..." -- Dixie Chicks

"The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride" -- GnR

"Too many puppies are afraid to see." - Primus





« Next Oldest · Alternative Theories · Next Newest »


7 Pages « < 5 6 7

1 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: acebaker



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2008 - 03:39 AM



All views expressed in this forum are not necessarily the views of pilotsfor911truth.org

Powered By IP.Board 2.3.5 © 2008 IPS, Inc.

No comments: