Thursday, November 27, 2008

Seeking Crashes Witnesses Thread

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
3 Pages 1 2 3 >
Seeking Crash Witnesses For Interview
Options
acebaker
Nov 23 2008, 04:21 PM
Post #1


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



I'm seeking any and all eyewitnesses to the crash of UA175 at the south tower. You must be willing to go on record and use your real name. Please contact me via email.

acebaker1234 [at] yahoo [dot] com

Thank you.

Ace Baker





rob balsamo
Nov 23 2008, 04:33 PM
Post #2


Extreme Pilot


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



Welcome back Ace.

Im not too sure you'll find many of the NYC witnesses to the south tower impact hanging around in the UAL175 section of this forum, but you may get lucky. You may want to try google for names of witnesses, cameramen... etc and try to find contact information via those channels. But you're welcome to leave your post here in case a witness does happen to drop by.

I'll try to get CIT to give you some tips on locating and interviewing witnesses. Good luck.


--------------------
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 23 2008, 09:55 PM
Post #3


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Rob, you were the one who asked if I wanted some pilots to interview, remember? What happened to them?







rob balsamo
Nov 23 2008, 11:51 PM
Post #4


Extreme Pilot


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



Try actually reading the link this time...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758958


--------------------
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, 01:29 AM
Post #5


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Actually, I was referring to this post

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758948

Where you said:

QUOTE
Let me know if you need a few [airplane crash witnesses to interview]... i know a few pilots who watched it happen from JFK and EWR.

Yes, I REALLY REALLY REALLY want to interview a few pilots who watched it happen from JFK and Newark.

Who are the few pilots, and will you please contact them and request that I may interview them?

Thank you,

Ace Baker







rob balsamo
Nov 24 2008, 10:47 AM
Post #6


Extreme Pilot


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



Ace,

Please stop cherry picking and read the whole thread again in context.

Specifically my answer to your post after the above you linked. We are repeating ourselves here....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758954

Pay close attention to this sentence...

QUOTE
We'll start there [with Shye].. .then if you need more... i'll track down the guys from JFK. But im sure Shye can track down alot more.. .good luck!


and this sentence...

QUOTE
I can not provide you his contact info as i dont even have it myself. Havent spoken to the guy in years. But i dont think he is lying about his story either as we knew each other well "flying the line".

and since we are repeating a thread in this thread, this thread gets moved to the same section.

The majority of this forum and organization disagree with your theories for reasons stated ad nauseum. We certainly will not do the leg work for you in an attempt to 'prove' your theory when many of us feel its disinformation, a red herring and overall hogwash, especially since you have not shown any initiative to interview witneses and instead ask others to bring them to you! Weak, poor form, the list goes on...

I gave you a name to start with from a first hand witness. A real, live, breathing witness with a real name who also happens to be a pilot at a former airline in which we both were employed. Im sorry if you do not have the observation skills to track down Shye for interview (hint: It clearly states on the ipilots.org website he now works for jetBlue). I know you would prefer to be spoon fed instead of doing your own legwork to prove your theory, but you came to the wrong place if you need someone to hold your hand.

Repeating myself once again,

If you want anyone to take your theories seriously, please review this post...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758943


Now, you have already taken up enough of my time from other work i have to accomplish, so forgive me if i dont reply to your posts in a timely fashion. Although, i look forward to the WTC witness lists broken down, and filmed on location by you, as did CIT for the events at the pentagon, who did not have to make a post "Seeking Witnesses". Good luck.


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



INP
Nov 24 2008, 11:40 AM
Post #7


Student Pilot


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



Hey Ace,

this is most likely Shye Gilad Rob was refering to:

http://www.projetaviation.com/shyegilad.html

Maybe Rob can confirm from the picture...



Good luck!

INP



rob balsamo
Nov 24 2008, 11:46 AM
Post #8


Extreme Pilot


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



Thats him!

Thanks INP


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



Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 24 2008, 12:19 PM
Post #9


Citizen Investigator


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



Here you go Ace...

http://letsrollforums.com/final-nail-no-pl...ml?amp;p=102631

http://zabasearch.com/

Don't be antagonistic and over confident that a plane did not hit the building. Speak to them with respect and pretend like you don't know "what really happened" and simply ask them to tell you what they saw.

Have fun!





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




acebaker
Nov 24 2008, 12:29 PM
Post #10


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



So they moved this thread under the radar also. Sigh.

Request sent to Shye Gilad

QUOTE
Dear Shye:

I'm making a documentary about 9/11, and I would like to interview anyone who saw an airplane crash into the World Trade Center. Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth said you are an eyewitness.

Please let me know if you are interested, and feel free to forward this request to any other eyewitnesses you may know.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker



rob balsamo
Nov 24 2008, 12:34 PM
Post #11


Extreme Pilot


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



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 24 2008, 11:29 AM)
So they moved this thread under the radar also. Sigh.

I just deleted the link left behind in the UA175 forum redirecting to this thread, so you can be accurate with your above claim.

Ace, when are you going to learn the definitions of terms such as "banned" and "under the radar"?


--------------------
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, 12:48 PM
Post #12


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 24 2008, 11:19 AM)
Here you go Ace...

http://letsrollforums.com/final-nail-no-pl...ml?amp;p=102631

http://zabasearch.com/

Don't be antagonistic and over confident that a plane did not hit the building. Speak to them with respect and pretend like you don't know "what really happened" and simply ask them to tell you what they saw.

Have fun!

Aldo -

It was nice to meet you in September at the conference. Though of pleasant demeanor, you were profoundly antagonistic towards my scientific approach, and seemed over-confident about your Pentagon fly-over theory. Unlike WTC, we do not have a rich literature of video evidence at the Pentagon, I appreciate all your hard work in interviewing these people.

Eyewitnesses are interesting, and I have been diligently searching for a single credible witness at the WTC. However, eyewitnesses are secondary to credible physical evidence, always. People can lie, and they can be mistaken. There are quite a few eyewitnesses who specifically did not see any plane at WTC, despite being in position, e.g. David Handshuch.

The videos of UA175 cannot be real. Please review the scientific proofs of video compositing that I have presented. If there was a plane crash at WTC2, then there must be errors throughout my paper. Feel free to point them out, and I will make corrections as needed.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

This post has been edited by acebaker: Nov 24 2008, 12:50 PM



Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 24 2008, 02:38 PM
Post #13


Citizen Investigator


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



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 24 2008, 04:48 PM)
Aldo -

It was nice to meet you in September at the conference. Though of pleasant demeanor, you were profoundly antagonistic towards my scientific approach, and seemed over-confident about your Pentagon fly-over theory.

Perhaps I seemed over-confident because I wasn't promoting a theory but actual proof and evidence. The plane approached on the north side of the Citgo. This alone proves the plane did not hit. This also implicates several people on the highway, including the cab driver. But eyewitness Officer Roosevelt Roberts did not see a theory banking around south parking lot AFTER the explosion either-he saw the plane flying away after the explosion.

It was nice to meet you also, but I was "profoundly antagonistic" towards the same tired arguments from the no-planers. I had no idea you were promoting these same arguments. So the point was still perfectly illustrated.

QUOTE
Unlike WTC, we do not have a rich literature of video evidence at the Pentagon, I appreciate all your hard work in interviewing these people.

Right and unlike the Pentagon, at the towers, we had a ton of people staring up at the burning towers when the second plane struck South Tower. So there are bound to be witnesses and not faked video, holograms, missiles etc.

QUOTE
Eyewitnesses are interesting, and I have been diligently searching for a single credible witness at the WTC.

They are more than interesting. They are the only means for independent verifiable evidence that we have. There are plenty of credible witnesses at WTC. I think you just need to do some more searching.


QUOTE
However, eyewitnesses are secondary to credible physical evidence, always.

Not in the case of 9/11. In the case of Shanksville and the Pentagon, the "physical evidence" ALONG WITH eyewitnesses testimony proves the deception. I am not sure what physical evidence at WTC you are referring to. And by the way, physical evidence only exists in physical form.


QUOTE
People can lie, and they can be mistaken.

Agreed. But logic would dictate that you wouldn't be finding this at WTC due to the sheer number of eyewitnesses. At least in regard to the 'no plane' allegations.

QUOTE
There are quite a few eyewitnesses who specifically did not see any plane at WTC, despite being in position, e.g. David Handshuch.



My name’s David Handschuh – I’m a staff photographer at the NY Daily News.

Sept 11th 2001, I was probably the first photographer on the scene at the WTC. I photographed the 2nd plane hitting the south tower – I covered the worst event I’ve ever seen in my life – every natural and unnatural disaster rolled into one. (23)

So where does he state that he didn't see it? Or better yet hear it? You say he was in a position, but it appears that he is on the exiting side of the tower/plane.

So where is your first hand verifiable proof that he didn't see, could see, or could hear a plane?


QUOTE
The videos of UA175 cannot be real.

Why because you said so? Because you deemed them fake? Because you interviewed witnesses that prove it is fake? Because you have several special effect/television graphics experts who have gone on the records and testified to this?

QUOTE
Please review the scientific proofs of video compositing that I have presented. If there was a plane crash at WTC2, then there must be errors throughout my paper. Feel free to point them out, and I will make corrections as needed.

I'll pass. This is a dead horse as far as I am concerned. I think I was pretty clear on your video. If you want to post some of what you consider to be your strongest evidence for video fakery, then post it here and we'll see if we can't make sense of what you are seeing for you.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Nov 24 2008, 02:40 PM


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




acebaker
Nov 24 2008, 06:19 PM
Post #14


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Aldo, your reasoning is circular. You're right that IF a plane had crashed at WTC2, thousands of people would have seen it. Maybe a hundred thousand. But you mustn't assume this. That is a logical fallacy known as "assuming the conclusion".

What thousand witnesses? What hundred witnesses? What ten? Where is ONE who will talk to me on the record?


The evidence I refer to is the videos. I've posted the evidence for video compositing here:

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







acebaker
Nov 24 2008, 07:02 PM
Post #15


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Sorry Aldo, David Handschuh was on the South side of the South Tower, on West Street. He was looking up at the tower, camera in hand. He did not see nor photograph an airplane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmMZQFRzFY

QUOTE
"The South Tower just exploded. It just . . . it just blew up. And someone said, 'that was a plane'. I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard heard the noise, but I never saw the airplane."

- David Handschuh

Your quote from Handschuh saying he photographed the airplane is a perfect example of how the psy-op works. Because the "airplane" became a "fact", and was shown over and over again on TV, Handschuh came to believe he saw something, and even photographed something, that he never saw and that he never photographed.

I have several other examples of documented 9/11 false memories.








acebaker
Nov 24 2008, 08:19 PM
Post #16


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 24 2008, 02:38 PM)


You say he was in a position, but it appears that he is on the exiting side of the tower/plane.

Yes, Aldo! The Handschuh photo certainly DOES look like the EXITING side of the tower! That's because it is exploding outwards. Unfortunately, we are supposed to believe this was the side of the tower the plane went INTO.

This post has been edited by acebaker: Nov 24 2008, 08:20 PM



Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:27 AM
Post #17


Citizen Investigator


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



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 24 2008, 10:19 PM)
Aldo, your reasoning is circular. You're right that IF a plane had crashed at WTC2, thousands of people would have seen it. Maybe a hundred thousand. But you mustn't assume this. That is a logical fallacy known as "assuming the conclusion".

What thousand witnesses? What hundred witnesses? What ten? Where is ONE who will talk to me on the record?


No you must assume this, because it is logical and it is factual. People were staring up at a burning tower. People with names were reported as seeing an airplane.

I gave you a list of people who saw the plane. Now contact them.

Record them to document your process you are already on the record being told to F off and you might take that some type of admission, but if you went in telling them you don't believe a plane hit the south tower you are going to piss them off because they saw the plane hit the south tower. Do not take that as validation.

I am not going to watch your videos. I have seen the no plane video productions and to entertain them is absurd.

Personally I do believe the whole 'no plane' campaign is a disinfo operation so I generally do not trust anyone who promotes it. I think it is designed to affect or offset what they did that Shanksville and the Pentagon which were the ACTUAL brazen acts of deception. The more you talk about it the more it alllows the scumbag debunkers and ops to connect it to us or anyone doing genuine onsite investigating into the two brazen events. And judging by your appearance on Hardfire it made you quite the easy target for debunking and ridicule which affect the 9/11 Truth Movement's credibility overall. And the more sophisticated and slick you are in your attempts to keep the no plane debate going, the more I don't trust you.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Nov 25 2008, 11:37 AM


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




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:33 AM
Post #18


Citizen Investigator


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



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 24 2008, 11:02 PM)
Sorry Aldo, David Handschuh was on the South side of the South Tower, on West Street. He was looking up at the tower, camera in hand. He did not see nor photograph an airplane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmMZQFRzFY

Your quote from Handschuh saying he photographed the airplane is a perfect example of how the psy-op works. Because the "airplane" became a "fact", and was shown over and over again on TV, Handschuh came to believe he saw something, and even photographed something, that he never saw and that he never photographed.

I have several other examples of documented 9/11 false memories.


Oh please. Don't talk to me about psy-ops because you are either involved in one or are a "useful idiot" in one.

Right, I got the wrong location. I wasn't sure to begin with. Frankly, I don't care where he was because I was confident he at least heard it even if he was on the impact side.

Did ya miss this part, Ace?

I had my camera in my hand, I heard heard the noise, but I never saw the airplane."

He heard it, he didn't see it and by the time he looked up and got his camera ready to shoot, it had already exploded into the building.

HE MISSED THE PLANE ACE!!!

It happens. He is human.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Nov 25 2008, 11:34 AM


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




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:37 AM
Post #19


Citizen Investigator


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



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 25 2008, 12:19 AM)
Yes, Aldo! The Handschuh photo certainly DOES look like the EXITING side of the tower! That's because it is exploding outwards. Unfortunately, we are supposed to believe this was the side of the tower the plane went INTO.

That is not what I meant and that is NOT proof. I simply thought he was on the exiting side based on the location of the other tower. I got that wrong and conceded it as unimportant as it is.

HE HEARD THE PLANE, ACE!


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




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:40 AM
Post #20


Citizen Investigator


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



LIEUTENANT MURRAY MURAD FDNY

QUOTE
"I ran downstairs. No sooner did I run downstairs and look up, that I saw the second plane strike the south tower."

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




« Next Oldest · Alternative Theories · Next Newest »


3 Pages 1 2 3 >

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 - 03:48 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
3 Pages < 1 2 3 >
Seeking Crash Witnesses For Interview
Options
Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:41 AM
Post #21


Citizen Investigator


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



FIREFIGHTER JAMES MURPHY

QUOTE
After that I ran up to the roof on the third floor with me and Eric Bernsten. We were watching it. We could see it from here. We have an unobstructed view. The other guys came up too. All six of us were on the roof.

Then we saw the second one come up. It looked like it was coming up the East River from here. I guess it was coming from the south. I thought it banked over the East River, which is what it looked like. I thought it made a left over the East River and went right into it going from east to west. But as it turns out, it came from the south. Then we saw it just go right into the building and explode.

I remember talking to Eric. I remember Eric saying something, "Oh, my God, there's another plane." I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building.

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




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:43 AM
Post #22


Citizen Investigator


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



BARRETT HIRSCH EMS


QUOTE
as I'm walking towards the Engine to find out what Lieutenant Walsh wanted us to do, I heard the sound of a jet plane. I looked up and saw it pretty close and I was like holy @#%$. What's going on with the with the flight patterns. All of a sudden, the wings turned and it dove right into the building and it was screwed up

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




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:43 AM
Post #23


Citizen Investigator


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



PARAMEDIC KENNETH DAVIS

QUOTE
As we were driving over the 59th Street bridge, just looking out the window, we saw a plane hit the World Trade Center, what we thought was a plane. When they looked, you could see the flames and the smoke starting and they're like, wow, it must have been one of the little planes. I said, no, it looked like a jet.

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




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:44 AM
Post #24


Citizen Investigator


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



CHIEF OF THE DEPARTMENT DANIEL NIGRO

QUOTE
At some point after our arrival and after we had moved to the west side of West Street, I heard a loud roar of a jet, looked up and saw the second plane impact the south tower. At that point it was clear to me it was a terrorist attack. We stepped over small airplane aviation parts, on Vesey, continued west, continued looking at the building.

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




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:45 AM
Post #25


Citizen Investigator


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



BATTALION CHIEF BRIAN OFLAHERTY


QUOTE
JUST THEN OUT OF THE CORNER OF MY EYE COULD SEE THIS PLANE JUST REMEMBER THE DARK IT WAS IN THE SHADOW IT LOOKED LOW THOUGHT WHAT THE HECK IS THE GUY DOING WATCHED IT WATCHED HIM TURN AND CRASH RIGHT INTO THE SOUTH TOWER.

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




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:45 AM
Post #26


Citizen Investigator


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



EMS CAPTAIN MARK STONE

QUOTE
I was looking up to see if I could do a little more initial size up. That is when I saw the second plane hit the building . I just watched it coming in.

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




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:45 AM
Post #27


Citizen Investigator


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



EMT JARJEAN FELTON

QUOTE
WHILE WEWERE RIGHT UNDER HERE UNDER THE WESTSIDE HIGHWAY AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE I SEEN THE SECOND PLANE COMING I’M THINKING ISNT THAT PLANE TOO LOW I’M LIKETHEN NOTICED SEEN IT TURN IT TURNED AND WENT RIGHT IN THE BUILDING BUT WERE BEHIND LIKE THIS IS THE BUILDING IT WENT IN AND YOU SEE THE EXPLOSION IN THE front

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




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:46 AM
Post #28


Citizen Investigator


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



FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH CASALIGGI

QUOTE
It was at that time when I saw the second plane hit the building. I called a mayday. I told them the second plane hit the south tower of the building. I wasn't sure which floors it was, but I knew it hit the upper floors of the south tower.

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




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:46 AM
Post #29


Citizen Investigator


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



FIREFIGHTER THOMAS GABY

QUOTE
Q. The second plane?

A. I saw it coming in, I heard it, and bang, it hit

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




Aldo Marquis CIT
Nov 25 2008, 11:47 AM
Post #30


Citizen Investigator


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



Why don't you start there, Ace?


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




acebaker
Nov 25 2008, 06:55 PM
Post #31


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



I called the FDNY. I was told the firefighters are not allowed to speak to me. I asked why that was, and I was not given an answer really. I was told that I would have to obtain clearance, and when I asked how to do that, I was told that they were "not interested".

I would be more than happy to interview the alleged witnesses.

I'm not inclined to believe the written government reports about witness statements any more than I am inclined to believe the 9/11 Commission report, or NIST. It's government lies. You might as well believe the Warren Commission.







dMole
Nov 26 2008, 04:30 AM
Post #32


Consultant


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



Post #92 from a nearby thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10759364

"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"

EDIT: Related threads are at:
Banning No-planers?, Merged with No Planes at WTC- "Proven"? Beyond All Doubt
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15538

Ace Baker - Video Composite Theory Set, merged threads
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15544


--------------------
"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, 12:25 PM
Post #33


Citizen Investigator


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



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 25 2008, 11:55 PM)
I called the FDNY. I was told the firefighters are not allowed to speak to me. I asked why that was, and I was not given an answer really. I was told that I would have to obtain clearance, and when I asked how to do that, I was told that they were "not interested".

I would be more than happy to interview the alleged witnesses.

I'm not inclined to believe the written government reports about witness statements any more than I am inclined to believe the 9/11 Commission report, or NIST. It's government lies. You might as well believe the Warren Commission.

Well that's what makes you a conspiracy theorist and us actual researchers and investigators trying to get to the truth.

You are going about it all wrong. First, you should try and simply contact them at home. Second, you should document what you are saying to them in the first place by recording it.

What is your EXACT approach Ace? What do you tell them about your beliefs or intentions?


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




acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 05:41 PM
Post #34


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Aldo, don't be so antagonistic and over-confident.





paranoia
Nov 26 2008, 06:47 PM
Post #35


dig deeper


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



I called the FDNY. I was told the firefighters are not allowed to speak to me. I asked why that was, and I was not given an answer really. I was told that I would have to obtain clearance, and when I asked how to do that, I was told that they were "not interested".

forgive my skepticism mr.baker/alexander, but who exactly did you call? the "fdny" is rather broad organization, dont u agree? surely you would expect the highest up office that you (presumably) reached, to turn you away. besides, im guessing that you were turned away by the "fdny" because "they" assumed you wanted to ask questions about the events in the towers, not some simple (and perceived to be crazy) question about the 2nd plane being real. but regardless of the vague entity known as "fdny", there are dozens of individual firehouses and 100's of firemen that you can personally try to reach out to. im willing to bet that if you reached one of these guys (firemen or emt's), and they could get over their incredulity of your line of inquiry, they would probably be willing to share with you that they DID see the 2nd plane enter the tower. sure - some of them may be insulted at such a question and turn you away, but some might not. the problem is that you havent even gone that far. you knocked only on a door that a had a high chance of not being answered, and then (it seems) you called it quits on your witness-hunting efforts.

it seems at this current point, you expect these witnesses to come to you instead. thus, your claim of "being more than happy to interview (alleged) witnesses (to the wtc crash or crashes)", is rather suspect. either you are looking to interview some of these witnesses, or you arent. some doomed-to-fail attempt at reaching them via some bureacracy, is well... lame. instead of relying on official channels for info, or worse - waiting for them to come to you - perhaps you can canvass some of the prime locations for "UAL 175" witnesses in NYC and find yourself a living witness who will go on camera and tell you that they did indeed see and hear a plane crash into the building (tho im sure all the fakery people will instantly label this person as a liar and a shill). there are probably other non-fdny or police witnesses in ny as well, so you dont have to solely go after those who may have been gagged.

all you have to do is get on foot, get to the locations, and start asking questions and posting flyers. sooner or later somebody is bound to pop up. but for now all you have is video expertise, a bunch of mostly low-res videos to examine, a fakery thesis, and alot of time spent debating fakery vs fakery with other fakery "experts". what you doNt have is any proof of your alleged rejection by the "FDNY", any proof of a substantive effort to actually find some real witnesses, nor any witness testimony - that either say they saw a plane impact OR testimony from someone saying they did NOT see a plane but saw explosions or a missile or whatever instead.


but to help you in your efforts, here is some contact info for some of the witnesses aldo named above. maybe you could tape them rejecting you (if they reject you) or enlightening you so that at least we know you really tried. until then, your alleged efforts to find witnesses is unsubstantiated.


possible JARJEAN FELTON:
http://www.whitepages.com/10866/search/Rep...&form_mode=


JOSEPH CASALIGGI
http://www.zabasearch.com/query1_zaba.php?...mp;tm=&tmr=

http://www.whitepages.com/10866/search/Rep...&form_mode=


THOMAS GABY
http://www.zabasearch.com/maps/?sname1=THO...631)%20321-6530

http://www.whitepages.com/10866/search/Fin...by&where=ny



***


one other note/question: of the videos you've analyzed, are any of them in their original quality? i assume the naudet footage is the highest quality (publicly available via DVD) of the bunch, but how about the rest? wether due to VHS recordings of news footage, or actual video camera video tapes from various people (amateurs), couldnt some of these video anomallies result from quality loss during transfer or from actual tape degradation? i mean i only have a handful of video tapes lying around, wether they be home VCR tapes, sony's old hi8 or sony's newer hi8, or minidv (not as common in 2001 for joepublic) or what have you. but most of these tapes have been taped over dozens of times, and the quality of the footage contained on them is crap (directly proportionate to how taped-over each of them is). so cant some of the video anomallies be attributed to "natural causes" and be lost resolution issues and not video fakery?

also - it seems to me that because of your expertise in the field of video, the layman is ill-equipped to debate the subject in a qualified manner with you. have you posted any of these video-related arguments at a forum of video and/or editing experts, preferrably a non-911 related site? if so, could you link us to those discussions please? if not, would you be willing to post this material at some VIDEO-related sites to see if other experts have some answers/explanations/rebuttals to your technical assertions?


***


and i saw you mention this in a different thread, but if its ok with you i would like to save time and respond here:

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.


i agree - what we see in the crash videos isnt what should (or is expected to) normally happen, but i think there is a simple explanation and its often been overlooked. if the building was intact inside (behind the facade), then yes certain solid parts of the plane's frame should meet with these solid building parts (most notably the floors and columns) and eventually slow down instead of penetrating unabated. but it is my opinion that seconds prior to impact, the insides of the building were dropped out of the way, up to 10 floors-worth on the impact/entry side, which in turn allowed the plane to go "seamlessly" into the building. the exterior wall metal where the plane met facade, were made of fairly thin metal:





and imo would have resulted in a negligible amount of resistance by the building. no fakery needed, at least not the video editing kind. instead some preplanning (pre-impact demolition) and precision guided airplane would be all thats required to accomplish what appears to happen in the video. all im saying is that video fakery is not the ONLY possible explanation for the crash physics. the question becomes: which is harder logistically to accomplish? maniuplating a live broadcast? or having a team of dirty-deed-doing henchmen who rigged the buildings for several layers of multi-purposed explosions?

and of course - as mentioned prior, how do you fool (the many) people on the streets who are all watching the first tower burning live without television, when this 2nd plane impact occurs? wouldnt at least some of these people have spoken up by now to say there was NO plane? until you make a real effort to find and then refute these witnesses, you're case has a significant flaw.

btw- sorry i just remembered one last thing - there was a lady, whose name escapes me right now, who took 35mm pictures of the plane and claims to have the negatives. have you tried reaching her to see if she's open to letting you document (examine) her negatives? i saw a thread about her at KT's forum, and of course they all labled her a shill and a fake, but i think she might be the best case against (or for!) video fakery. im not into contacting people, but would you be willing to look into finding her for more info?



just my humble 2 cents...




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




acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 09:12 PM
Post #36


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



In all cases I have analyzed the best quality footage that is availalbe. The fact that the airplane videos, and in particular Chopper 5, are not available in broadcast quality, AT ANY PRICE, is very suspicious.

Fairbanks, Hezarkhani, Park Foreman and Naudet come from DVD. Chopper 5 is from VHS.

Naudet appears to have been originally shot in HD, it is 16 x 9 ratio. AKAIK, the Naudet brothers have never made available the original quality footage for examination of the airplane.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Video911/petition.html

Here is a petition requesting broadcast quality video.







acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 09:14 PM
Post #37


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Your "garage door" theory makes no sense.

1. We see no evidence of any explosions prior to the airplane going in.
2. We still see no evidence of the wall breaking away, which would occur even if the floors were removed.

The 9/11 airplane videos are video composites.





Quest
Nov 26 2008, 09:25 PM
Post #38


Extreme Pilot


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



Aldo, I have a few questions for you. I do not make a claim with 100 percent certainty that no plane struck either tower. I don't think that's the case (that planes hit) but I am open to the possibility. What I do believe with a great degree of certainty is the faking of most of the strike videos and photos. That being said, my 1st question is as follows; is it your claim that all of the WTC video/photo "evidence" is legit?

My next question is, is it possible that the strike photos/videos were faked or tampered with to hide the identity of what actually hit?

This post has been edited by Quest: Nov 26 2008, 09:30 PM



acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 09:44 PM
Post #39


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



No Quest, it is not possible to have covered up an incoming object in real time. Read my treatise.







Quest
Nov 26 2008, 10:31 PM
Post #40


Extreme Pilot


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



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 27 2008, 02:44 AM)
No Quest, it is not possible to have covered up an incoming object in real time. Read my treatise.

Oh, I agree that the videos do no represent what actually transpired, Ace. However it was done (the fakery), the physics don't support what we saw in the various video/photos of plane 'strikes'. Aluminum planes don't melt into steel-framed towers. Additionally, there has never been any witnesses to plane debris where you would most expect to see it; on the ground below the gash. No videos, photos or witnesses. Amazing.



« Next Oldest · Alternative Theories · Next Newest »


3 Pages < 1 2 3 >

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 - 03:48 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
3 Pages < 1 2 3
Seeking Crash Witnesses For Interview
Options
acebaker
Nov 26 2008, 11:49 PM
Post #41


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



QUOTE (Quest @ Nov 26 2008, 10:31 PM)
Oh, I agree that the videos do no represent what actually transpired, Ace. However it was done (the fakery), the physics don't support what we saw in the various video/photos of plane 'strikes'. Aluminum planes don't melt into steel-framed towers. Additionally, there has never been any witnesses to plane debris where you would most expect to see it; on the ground below the gash. No videos, photos or witnesses. Amazing.


Right, but the point is that for LIVE videos (CHopper 5, Chopper 7), proving video compositing also proves there was no flying object of any kind. It is currently impossible to reliably cover up a moving object on video, in real-time.





paranoia
Yesterday, 01:54 AM
Post #42


dig deeper


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



Your "garage door" theory makes no sense.

1. We see no evidence of any explosions prior to the airplane going in.
2. We still see no evidence of the wall breaking away, which would occur even if the floors were removed.

The 9/11 airplane videos are video composites.


1) i believe the towers were brought down via explosives, yet there arent any typical explosions (flames an whatnot) visible during the "collapse", cuz someone took great care to hide them. so i dont think its a given that you would have to be able to see "explosions" in order to remove floors.

regarding the impact/penetration - isnt the exterior wall (on impact side) blocking the view of whatever's happening inside? im guessing here, but to drop the floors (and perhaps even the columns), maybe they used a minimal amount of directional charges and had them shielded from view by placing them on the side opposite the facade wall.

and for all you know, you did see an explosion prior to impact - cuz as far as i know - no one has posited (what i consider to be) a plausible explanation for the flash seen prior to impact in all of the crash vids.

and on a trivial sidenote: you're willing to take fairbanks literally when he says "it was like a movie", but not when he says "the building was hallowed out like a hangar"?


2) i disagree. i see a penetrated exterior with holes punched thru it, which disappears from view quickly thanks first to grey smoke and then to the massive orange fireball explosions. again - this is all based on second (or who knows 3rd or 4th hand) copies of video taped footage, so who knows how clearly the damage would appear in higher definition video?

but fine, we can agree to disagree on the above specifics. let's drop that (or not - its up to you) and move on...



-do you have any thoughts on any of the rest of my post? isnt video degradation a factor? and how about the actual VCR or camera heads? worn or dirty video heads can also lead to consistent (in appearance) and (uniformly) continued/repeated video artifacts on a given piece of taped content. surely you have to admit that there is a chance that at least some of the videos suffer loss of picture quality due to "normal" reasons and not fakery, yes?



-and how about the witnesses i provided links to? will you try to contact them?



-and what about this:

Reduced: 86% of original size [ 967 x 574 ] - Click to view full image


http://www.kcphotographer.com/pagewhen.html

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/kc_060508.mp3

?

i checked out her info, and her pov from that address happens to match the location the above pic was taken from:

http://whois.domaintools.com/kcphotographer.com

phonebook link

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&resn...sa=N&tab=wl

any chance you (or anyone else here) could contact her please and see if we can get a view of the negatives?



-and have you or are you willing to present your very-technically-based debate to a forum where other experts in your field can share qualified insights and assessments of your work? wouldnt you agree that its them you should be having this debate with? have you, or will you post your 22 points about video fakery in a more relevant forum?

your hardfire debate with that guy (name escapes me) was a pretty good start. but one of the problems with it was that the other guy was an outright O.C.T.- believin' 911 skeptic. so it would be informative to see you debate a video expert who also happens to believe 911 was an "inside job", but who disagrees on fakery/npt - any chance of that? or how about a follow up debate with that skeptic video expert guy? btw - was steve wright his name?



This post has been edited by paranoia: Yesterday, 01:57 AM


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




dMole
Yesterday, 02:21 AM
Post #43


Consultant


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



QUOTE (paranoia @ Nov 26 2008, 10:54 PM)
your hardfire debate with that guy (name escapes me) was a pretty good start. but one of the problems with it was that the other guy was an outright O.C.T.- believin' 911 skeptic. so it would be informative to see you debate a video expert who also happens to believe 911 was an "inside job", but who disagrees on fakery/npt - any chance of that? or how about a follow up debate with that skeptic video expert guy? btw - was steve wright his name?
Is this the one paranoia, with a rather smirky (from what I saw of the first couple of minutes) Ron Wieck hosting?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4669137903152322593


--------------------
"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
Yesterday, 02:49 AM
Post #44


dig deeper


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



yep thats the one dmole, thanx for linking it. and yes somewhere between martinis ron weak apparently found the time to host...

but i do think its a great debate and i would like to see a continuation/progression of the technical aspects discussed therein, wether it be wright vs. baker, or any other video expert vs. baker...


***

on a side note to ace: whats your belief regarding what brought the towers down? im aware that you have openly attempted to expose the shill-duo fraudsters - wood/hutchison, and i commend you for it. but i cant remember what your position was regarding the method that brought the towers down...

i only bring it up since i cited the "collapse" demolition in defense of my "garage door" theory (as you put it), then i realized that you might not accept conventional demo devices as the cause of the towers "collapse" (and therefore you might find my comparison irrelevant), so i was hoping you might clarify.

thanks.

This post has been edited by paranoia: Yesterday, 02:50 AM


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




acebaker
Yesterday, 12:54 PM
Post #45


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



The Steve Wright debate was completely unfair, because he was supplied with a list of every point I would make, while I had no clue of what claims he would offer. I felt it was important to do it anyway, because prior to Wright, there were simply no answers to many of the questions. Wright has now supplied several answers, and none of them hold up to scrutiny.


Incendiaries were used to melt floor trusses, causing an inward pull between perimeter and core. Molten metal was observed flowing out of WTC2.

The towers were then blown up with very powerful explosives, nuclear most likely. The high tritium levels would point to fusion, the stronitum-barium would point to fission, as would the china syndrome fuming. It was a very efficient, low-radiation reaction proceeding from top to bottom, as observed.

Judy Wood has provided a mostly excellent visual record of the totality of the destruction, then associated that with a patently ridiculous non-theory about DEW.







Quest
Yesterday, 02:25 PM
Post #46


Extreme Pilot


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



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 27 2008, 04:49 AM)
Right, but the point is that for LIVE videos (CHopper 5, Chopper 7), proving video compositing also proves there was no flying object of any kind. It is currently impossible to reliably cover up a moving object on video, in real-time.

Gotcha. In other words, "no plane" hit. This raises another question, is the Hezerkhani video "live" with a plane inserted or a composite made sometime before/after the morning of 911?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K0qlA77ewY

A great piece of detective work here by Killtown.

"OMG!" - Hezarkhani audio fakery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5i07-kHgww...feature=related

This post has been edited by Quest: Yesterday, 03:54 PM



Quest
Yesterday, 02:49 PM
Post #47


Extreme Pilot


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



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 27 2008, 04:54 PM)
The Steve Wright debate was completely unfair, because he was supplied with a list of every point I would make, while I had no clue of what claims he would offer. I felt it was important to do it anyway, because prior to Wright, there were simply no answers to many of the questions. Wright has now supplied several answers, and none of them hold up to scrutiny.


Incendiaries were used to melt floor trusses, causing an inward pull between perimeter and core. Molten metal was observed flowing out of WTC2.

The towers were then blown up with very powerful explosives, nuclear most likely. The high tritium levels would point to fusion, the stronitum-barium would point to fission, as would the china syndrome fuming. It was a very efficient, low-radiation reaction proceeding from top to bottom, as observed.

Judy Wood has provided a mostly excellent visual record of the totality of the destruction, then associated that with a patently ridiculous non-theory about DEW.

I agree, the entire DEW thing is ridiculous. I recently came across two versions of the same clip showing obviously edited audio intended to hide the sounds of demoliton charges going off and I think it's partly why the "DEW" thing took hold.

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=5691

QUOTE
Compare the following audio in video which were obviously taken from the same camera.

Listen at 15 seconds into this video where the camera pans from the firemen up to the tower at the beginning of the "collapse".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX0xyi_qFtk

Listen to the same clip of the firemen at 1:43 in the below video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfGYgC3qNio

It is VERY obvious to me that the audio in the firemen clip was tampered with to keep us from hearing the sounds of explosions.



acebaker
Yesterday, 05:09 PM
Post #48


Student Pilot


Group: Student Pilot
Posts: 99
Joined: 12-November 08
Member No.: 3,988



Hezarkhani was NOT shown live, no video showing the "plane crash" was shown live.



Quest
Yesterday, 06:05 PM
Post #49


Extreme Pilot


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



QUOTE (acebaker @ Nov 27 2008, 09:09 PM)
Hezarkhani was NOT shown live, no video showing the "plane crash" was shown live.

I should have explained myself better. I didn't mean was Hezerkhani's video was "live" but rather do you think the landscape, tower and explosion in the video are what actually transpired with a plane overlayed on it or is the entire video a collage of images? I tend to believe the latter is true but am open to other possibilities. Either way, I don't beleieve the Hezerkhani video represents what happened because the physics don't support it.

This post has been edited by Quest: Today, 02:27 AM



« Next Oldest · Alternative Theories · Next Newest »


3 Pages < 1 2 3

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 - 03:49 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: