FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Additional evidence for no planes

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:10 am    Post subject: Additional evidence for no planes Reply with quote

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

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

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

If there really were planes, and 'no plane theory' is really so far out, then the producers would have presented it, and had their guys knock it down. The fact that they completely ignored it speaks volumes to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:00 am    Post subject: Re: Additional evidence for no planes Reply with quote

Ace Baker wrote:
The recent documentary on History Channel "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Fact or Fiction?" was a standard media hit piece on the truth movement. The obvious strategy was to have a truther make a "conspiracy claim", then bring on the "expert" to set us straight.


As I didn't see the programme in question, are you saying all the other 'claims' were knocked down and you felt foolish then?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rowan Berkeley
Banned
Banned


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

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

_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
egw
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 101
Location: Brisbane, Australia

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


I haven't seen the HC doco, but that's an interesting point - why don't they pick the low-hanging fruit, the easy target?

Are they stupid? There are prominent people - professors, no less - out there saying that the planes were "faked," and that the buildings were knocked down by space beams, and this hit piece doesn't even bother to mention it? What were they thinking??

Maybe they don't want to discredit Woods and Reynolds because Woods and Reynolds are out there spreading "stoopid," and that's fine by the good people at the History Channel?

* *

Ghengis looks like he's A.S.I.O. (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) to me. I'd love to sit at home all day getting paid above the average wage to spread lies on the internet.

Well, I'd love the "getting paid" bit, but having morals, I'd hate myself for choosing to spread lies on the internet. Especially about this sort of stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rowan Berkeley
Banned
Banned


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have never been a member of the Loose Change forums, but I can well believe they are policed by ferocious watchdogs.
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


No more so than most other fora, although Russell 'govt loyalist' Pickering's exact status remains to be determined.

Of course what's hilariously hilarious is that the 'researchers' own blind faith in the rightness of their weak as inter-stellar gnat's piss theory coupled with an arrogant 'everyone's in league with the perps except us' stance has now left them pretty much where anyone with half a centipede's brain could have predicted; preaching to themselves, whining that their theories are theora non gratis everywhere and furiously and impotently berating the dashboards of their cars.

And, as has been suggested, the perps media poodles might well leave that which is in their own best interests alone.

Boo hoo.
Here endeth the lesson.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Mind Gamer


Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


I don't. I think they fit perfectly well together under "Silly BS that demeans rational evidence by association".

_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rowan Berkeley
Banned
Banned


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

is it too much to ask that they should be debunked separately??
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

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

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

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

If you were making a hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement, what would you include? Why?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Mind Gamer


Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rowan Berkeley wrote:
is it too much to ask that they should be debunked separately??


Personally, I find it scary that they're being taken seriously enough to where they need to be 'debunked' at all. *sigh*

_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

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

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

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

illogical thinking + irrational bias = bs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

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


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

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

Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rowan Berkeley
Banned
Banned


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ace, don't you have a nose-out clip that shows the city-scape by way of background? Isn't it THAT we should be watching the towers against? Your clip has only a background of sky, AFAICS.
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

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

so why bother asking them?

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

if this theory continues to be ignored I will take it as conclusive proof that an ExoTech Stealth Banana was used.... Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

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

My data clearly show otherwise.

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

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

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

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

It will take less than 5 minutes to do this exercise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rowan Berkeley
Banned
Banned


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

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

_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

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

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

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

It's must see.

http://www.livevideo.com/bsregistration
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rowan Berkeley
Banned
Banned


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But once you get to that point, it becomes equally logical to speculate that ALL the videos are DELIBERATELY UNCONVINCING FAKES, created just to waste our time and make us look like lunatics.
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Except in the case of the live videos, for which there was very little time to alter them. It is logical to assume that the live videos have less alteration, and simpler kinds of alteration, than those which emerged much later.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3172
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


Or indeed: NO ALTERATION

_________________
We are not a community looking to believe: We are a community dedicated to seeing what is

Enjoy the View from the Hills:
http://malvernmessages.free-forums.org/malvernmessages.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Castles in the air are being built on the as-flimsy-as-wet toilet-tissue assumption that video footage displaying apparent anomalies is genuine. Six years later, the sad truth is: NO video footage can be trusted any more as the real McCoy because no one can be sure that it has not been tampered with by disinfo agents beavering away to keep us chasing our tails instead of studying real evidence of a conspiracy. That is why no one ought to take seriously any inference from such evidence of uncertain provenance. Jim Fetzer ought to know better, having discredited the Magruder film of the JFK assassination. But no, he falls for the latest flavor of the month in the 9/11 world by not even stopping to question whether the footage showing anomalies is genuine or has been deliberately altered to make people viewing it ask the wrong questions and then answer them with ludicrously false answers that can only discredit the 9/11 movement - which is its intention, of course. As the authenticity of such film cannot be checked with certainty, all we have here is an argument over either bad data (poor-resolution, highly compressed video files that get misinterpreted) or data whose genuineness we cannot be sure about. Sorry, no-planers, but we don't need it. We already have far superior evidence of a conspiracy on 9/11.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group