Several proofs of 9/11 video fakery

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/The_Over-Under_Puffball

see also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTbm5ewcIeU

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/One_Obvious_Mask

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Down_the_Memory_Hole


from here:
http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page

Different videos from different angles look different!
:eyes:

Seriously though.. Ace Baker is a douchebag and why you put any faith in shoddy comparisons like this is beyond me.

Seeing him on Hardfire, it became clear that Ace's devotion to this bizarre delusion has seriously screwed with his mental health - or he started out mentally impaired and is manifesting it through this delusion. He needs professional help.

I tend to dump everyone as against the Democratic party as he is into one bag: Douchebag. Makes them easier to keep track of for me :D

Edit: Change dumb to dump

No planer?

Also a decent sound guy and a songwriter - wrote "Judy Would" in honor of Judy.

... like me.

TV Fakery and nukes at the WTC are just as nutty as anything Judy Wood ever advocated.

There is plenty of good evidence for both video fakery and nukes. I can't say the same for Wood's DEW.

As far as Wood, she befriended me, and I thought she had a real inside source for her DEW theory. But she misled me badly, and it turns out she is a major disinfo artist. I think the fact that she is still out there, peddling the DEW disinfo, with apparent supporters, is instructive by itself about the 9/11 coverup. I know you like to think she is just a crazy person, but I think her story is deeper than that.

why do you think AB is a douchebag?

I only looked at the first one, when I saw it was Ace, I stopped because he is an idiot as well as a douchebag. He appears to be comparing two different shots that sure don't look like they are synced to me and trying to pawn off that they should be identical. When an amateur does crap like that and tries to pass it off as credible, I call that shoddy. I think he is a douchebag because I've read his website. A few thing:

1 - Personally, I am for the Democratic party. He is not.

2 - Personally, I like President Obama. He thinks he is Lord Obama.

3 - Personally, I don't think having health care for everyone is a bad idea. He does.

4 - Personally, I don't deny science. He does.

Thats off the top of my head, I suppose I could return to his blog and find more offensive things but really... if anyone reading this needs more reason they will have to look elsewhere, it is enough for me. Honestly, I do not know why his crap is allowed to be posted here but... one day when I'm all growed up and have my own website, I'll be allowed to make the rules :D

Where does AB deny science?

I just don't fall for bullshit.

From Ace's post "A Few Predictions on Lord Obama's Regime" made on 1/20/2009:

2. Energy Taxes and Takeover

I predict the media will ramp up support for energy taxes with a series of stories about "global warming". They'll need to wait until summer to begin this in earnest.


I'm sorry but if this asshole thinks global warming needs to be in quotes, he denies it... and science.

Would you like me to source the rest of my claims on this douchebag? In his own words? I have no problem doing so.

and I think man-made global warming is a real problem.

But I think he's scientific in his own way and he's done good work on video fakery... and a proof is a proof.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

on actually, like, looking at the evidence.

Speaking as someone that really needs to see nothing, I've given it more then a fair shake. I think you understand and respect that I find the whole idea offensive on a personal level and I appreciate that. I do believe you think this is real (or not, as the case may be) but I've seen zero evidence of video fakery. Amateurs making bad comparisons is not proof of anything.

Ask yourself this though... Why does someone with so much money to throw around not take a small part of it and hire someone to definitively prove, with expert opinion, that the videos are fake?

and it's hard to "formally prove" video fakery when NO ONE WILL GIVE ACCESS TO THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE OR MAKE HIGH RES COPIES. That was the point of the $100,000.

As for his 100k, I have addressed that before, it is bogus. If you missed it let me know and I'll find it and link to it.

as far as the 100K, I suppose you think no one will take the money because they think it is a trick of some sort?

Shouldn't an honest videographer be happy to prove Ace wrong and get $100K?

I don't see anywhere he makes that claim, I thought he was just a musician.

The person who's honesty should be called into question is Ace's. If he really wanted the truth he would not have so many conditions but rather just want the videos examined by a pro, which he is not. He has his bogus offer up for only one reason, so he can point to it and say no one will take him up on it.

but he certainly is a video expert-- he's made a movie and demonstrated how you can do video fakery via chroma key effects-- and there is little doubt he is qualified to examine footage for fakery.

All he can do is ask for footage-- and his stipulations are not unreasonable. It's odd, in these times, not one of 30+ amateurs is willing to give footage for analysis for $100,000.

As well on if he has proven anything because I do not see it at all. to me it is hokey at best.

I also think you are being deceived if you think it is 100k for footage analysis, it is not. I suggest you go read the offer again because it is not just for analysis.

I seem to recall a certain hardfire episode where he was talking to an actual video professional, and the poor guy had to keep explaining to Ace that what he (Ace) was suggesting simply wasn't possible. Not in 2001, nor in 2008.

ETA: The actual episode: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4669137903152322593

Second, Baker clearly a professional video expert.

Thirdly, Baker held his own just fine with Wright.

Inserting a CGI plane into a video is not possible in real-time? Riiight.

The problem is doing it with an unstable platform, since whatever "source" you're imagening is feeding the "fake airplane" is constantly having to calculate & re-calculate surroundings and how it interacts with the "fake airplane".

Hell, just look at all the trouble the Chinese had with their fireworks show at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, with it being uncovered as fake within a few hours.

He most certainly is not a video expert. He was completely unaware of most of the points the actual video expert made. He couldn't even follow along.

And he most certainly did not hold his own. Any objective viewer can see that he got his ass handed to him repeatedly.

You people are amazing-- how you can view an objective situation so differently.

Wither or not he 'held his own' is not objective. The people brought of different sides of an argument. In my opinion for example the actual video expert (Objectively one was an expert and one a relative amateur) made a very convincing case that the 'nose pass through' was utter BS. His velocity measurement showed quite clearly that the original claim made by baker was silly. Baker had to back off the position and introduce new excuses (um... factors he might say) to explain the delay that simply were not present in his initial hypothesis.
And that is only one of the points he was totally owned on *in my opinion*

You could look at that and say gee they couldn't 'prove' his claims were false so he 'held his own'. It is not a simple 2+2!=5 situation. Creationists think they win debates with scientists all the time. Most of the world knows they made fools of themselves.

Frankly Spooked you believe some totally crazy stuff which actually IS factually impossible so I don't give any more weight to who you think made good points than I would to Ray Comfort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI&feature=channel

does not equal rationality. In many ways Qualiasoup's video could replace belief in the supernatural with belief in conspiracy theory.

can you rebut it or not?

If they were remotely true, hundreds, if not thousands or even tens of thousands, of witnesses would step forward and say, "I witnessed the attacks and, despite what all the videos show, there was no plane that struck the WTC!". It would be impossible to keep a lid on it. I would suggest taking a critical thinking class. Your local community college will have one. In the meantime, I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing DU with your goofy claims.

those witnesses could have been fooled any number of ways. It behooves you to look at the proofs and judge whether they are true or not-- assuming you are interested in the truth.

thousands of witnesses were "fooled" into seeing a plane that didn't exist? Please tell me how I'm not being "scientific". Your claims are goofy. When you get challenged on thew, you just invent goofier claims. again, tell us how thousands of people got fooled into seeing planes.

I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing DU.