The LOST ACE - No Planer Pleads for Austrian Libertarians to Lend An Ear

apathoid said:
Or the nose of the airplane, for that matter. Even if it was the nose, the nose landing gear assembly wouldn't slow as fast as the aluminum parts after impact and could essentially pave the way for the lighter, less robust parts which followed. And why can't it be debris shooting out between the exterior columns?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Seriously, aren't the odds approximately 1000 to 1 that it IS debris?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I will explain it to you, Dr. T.A.M.

The only video which showed the "plane" hit live was the helicopter shot in the upper left of "The Hole That Wasn't There" graphic. They overlayed a CGI plane on to real video using the WESCAM system (the same one that inserts 1st down stripes on football fields). They screwed up, and the nose of the plane came through the other side. We call this "Pinocchio's Nose". They quickly cut to black, but it was too late.

After that, the other videos which emerged had to show the same thing. So they had to paste Pinocchio's nose into those as well.

There is no way the nose of that aircraft could survive crashing though those columns, but if it somehow could, then there would be a hole.

This also caused an additional problem, they had to make the nose disappear in all those other videos, so they pasted fake flames on top of the real flames. StillDiggin calls this the "Venus Plane Trap". Check out his site.
Click to expand...

....only video which showed the "plane" hit live...

I've been remiss in following Ace around Lalaland. Can someone elucidate? Is mixer-boy saying that the other videos, from various angles and showing clearly a cloud of various debris shooting out of the north face, are faked?

I don't get this. The NWO Illuminati, who had enough money to pull of the greatest fraud in the history of the world, let someone make a fake video that showed the nose of the plane, which any school kid can tell you would have been shredded on initial impact, poking out the other side of the building? And they obviously had to have done it in advance so that the studios could air it immediately.... Yet no one said, "Ya know, those buildings are made of steel, and the nose wouldn't come out like that, it'd be in pieces all over the floors where it hit."

So they make this serously flawed "evidence", don't want to invest $19.95 in fixing it to make it better, then get out and bribe every news organization in the world, and several individuals, probably with millions of dollars, to include Pinnochio's nose in all their videos..... YET I DON'T SEE PINOCCHIO'S NOSE IN ALL THOSE VIDEOS. DOES ANYONE ELSE, OTHER THAN ACE?

And Ace, why is there that picture you post of the north face clearly showing window sections and beams still in tact and yet there's no Pinnochio's nose pasted onto that shot? And no great big gaping hole where it would have come through in one piece? Wouldn't these masterminds have also commandeered this and several hundred other shots of the north face and made alterations to show a believable hole?

Here are a whole bunch of videos. Some show something that looks like the nose of the plane coming out, and some don't. How's that possible? You already established that they altered all the other videos to show that famous Pinnochio's nose. Looks to me like from different angles the light catches the smoke and debris differently, and in some of them, like the faces in the smoke tricks, you can see what looks like a solid object. Yet in others, it's not there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjbhLuf-PSg&mode=related&search=


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



You've posted some whacky stuff, but this takes the cake!
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
Seriously, aren't the odds approximately 1000 to 1 that it IS debris?
Click to expand...
It is a certainty that it's debris. Remember, this event was captured from many angles. This is paranoid paredolia: exactly the same as Killtown's "faces in the smoke." Seeing patterns in a low-resolution still image of a dynamic event. No one who watches the videos at normal speed, or sees still photos with decent resolution, or takes a moment to learn about the physics of a plane crash, would make such irrational claims. Unless that person is severely delusional.
 
T.A.M. said:
This is an accurate analogy. When it comes to the "Chesst" I am far from, an expert. Get a Thoracic surgeon in here, and I am sure he could comment on ETS quite expertly. Give me the chance, and desire, to read up on it a bit, and I also could make fairly good comment on it.

TAM;)
Click to expand...

ETS surgery is the province of both thoracic and vascular surgerons, thoracic mostly. Technically ETS should be considered neurosurgery, but as far as I know Dr. Martin Cooper at Cedars Sinai is the only ETS surgeon who identifies as a neurosurgeon.

The original author of the treatise provided me with a good deal of material collected speaking to individual surgeons. It is clear to me that, in general, the ETS surgeons do not know much about the function of the sympathetic nervous system. Or, if they do know, the aren't talking. A better call would be to neurophysiologists.

I have been contacting ETS surgeons, and neurologists and requesting peer review on the treatise, thusfar without answer. The only comments received thusfar are from David S. Goldstein MD PhD at NIH, whose work studying the neurocardiological aspects of ETS is referenced in the treatise.

I would welcome any assistance you might provide in contacting experts to comment on the physiological and psychological effects of the particular type of nerve damage inflicted during ETS surgery.

T.A.M., if you are indeed interested in boning up, the references page in the treatise provides a handy resource.
 
TS, you are mistaken. The faking of all of the video evidence simply is not possible.

As Gravy pointed out, the nose of UA175 was destroyed on impact. What you so insensitively refer to as "Pinocchio's nose" is a mass of debris.

-Gumboot
 
In considering our responses to "Pinocchio's Nose", let us all remember that Ace can see plain as day that the damage to WTC7 was "cylindrical", and that the damage to various other buildings from the twin tower collapses were "perfectly round".

I believe the only appropriate response is:

_cute20kitten.jpg
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I used to question it. Now I'm quite certain that no planes hit the towers. No way can the wing of a passenger jet sever those steel box columns. No way.
Click to expand...



Hokulele said:
Much like, no way straw, or even vinyl albums, can penetrate a telephone pole?
Click to expand...

T.A.M. said:
no way a mans hand can crack a pile of bricks...

TAM:):)
Click to expand...


Tokorona said:
And how did everyone see it from the ground then? Holograms?
Click to expand...


gumboot said:
TS, you are mistaken. The faking of all of the video evidence simply is not possible.

As Gravy pointed out, the nose of UA175 was destroyed on impact. What you so insensitively refer to as "Pinocchio's nose" is a mass of debris.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

I see the kitty, so it's ok for the bench-warmers to post...

Also, no way could a tornado destroy one house completely and leave the one right next to it standing, unscathed.

TS, my mother-in-law--with whom I never disagree--was standing on her roof deck in Tribeca wondering what all the fuss was about when she watched the second plane hit. She's a tough bird--if the NWO were trying to buy her silence she'd tell them to 8 off, even though she's a Buddhist.

I'd like to recommend 2 books to you, because they are from a neutral point of view:

American Ground, by William Langewiesche
This is first and second hand reporting


Aftermath by Joel Meyerowitz
www.amazon.com/ Aftermath-World-Trade-Center-Archive/dp/0714846554

This is amazing, because unlike YouTube, it gives you some idea of how frickin' HUGE the WTC was. It helps to have large-format panoramic photos...
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Steven, have you checked out the evidence on 9/11? Those videos are all faked, only one of them was on "live", and they screwed it up, the nose of the plane comes out the other side of the building, and they had to cut to black for a second.
Click to expand...

Only one that was live?

What about the NBC broadcast?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcIIfim3txE

...and ABC (this view was also broadcast live on the BBC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMucVeew8eg

....and WB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOrxB8c9zg

All of these are different views.
 
Gravy said:
It is a certainty that it's debris. Remember, this event was captured from many angles.
Click to expand...

I thought the video wasn't high enough quailty to make a determination. Now you say it's certainly debris.

How can debris form itself into the exact size and shape of the nose of the airplane?

Why did the video engineer onboard Chopper 5 quickly fade to black?

Why does the nosecone/debris appear in some videos, and not in others, and why does it look so different from one to the next? It looks exactly like the nose of the aircraft in the one live video, and also looks like a shiny aluminum nosecone and fuselage in other videos which came later, then in others it looks like smoke?

Gravy, I'm asking you a direct question for at least the third time: Where is the page and section where NIST studies the impact videos?

Several have stated that it is "impossible" to have added fake images to the videos. That is perhaps the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. What's impossible is for a passenger jet to crash into a twin tower and exhibit no crash physics of any kind. Not physically possible.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Several have stated that it is "impossible" to have added fake images to the videos. That is perhaps the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.
Click to expand...
And how do you explain then the hundreds, if not thousands, of eyewitnesses who saw the aircraft crash into the towers?

Now, as to faking videos, yes, it would be theorectically possible. But visual effects on a par with what ILM does are expensive. Very expensive. And time consuming to, especially if you want it to look top-notch. I'd expect such an enterprise as you're proposing would have tied up ILM or other large VFX house for quite some time, making them unavailable to take effects jobs for Hollywood pictures, and folks would notice that.
 
Mancman said:
Only one that was live?

What about the NBC broadcast?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcIIfim3txE

...and ABC (this view was also broadcast live on the BBC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMucVeew8eg

....and WB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOrxB8c9zg

All of these are different views.
Click to expand...

And none of them show the impact, all are from the opposite side. The only live shot that came close to actually showing the impact was Fox Chopper 5, and they screwed it up.

The WB clip is interesting, because there is no trace of Pinocchio's nose. Also, nobody felt the need to quickly fade to black. Only the Fox Chopper 5 shot, with Pinocchio's nose, has the quick fade out.

OOPS!

Why on earth would Chopper 5 do the quick fade out?

The money shots actually showing the plane entering the building all came out later. They all display impossible physics, what Evan Fairbanks described as "like a bad special effect".
 
Corsair 115 said:
And how do you explain then the hundreds, if not thousands, of eyewitnesses who saw the aircraft crash into the towers?

Now, as to faking videos, yes, it would be theorectically possible. But visual effects on a par with what ILM does are expensive. Very expensive. And time consuming to, especially if you want it to look top-notch. I'd expect such an enterprise as you're proposing would have tied up ILM or other large VFX house for quite some time, making them unavailable to take effects jobs for Hollywood pictures, and folks would notice that.
Click to expand...

These are not on a par with ILM. The pros would never just have the plane melt into the building with no crash physics. If they were going for realism, they would have it smash into pieces, and the wings would explode on impact. The 9/11 perps couldn't do that, because there would need to be debris at the foot of the building, and there would not be plane-shaped holes in the perimeter columns. Especially ridicuolus are the wing-tip cutouts. The steel columns aren't even bent, they are cut cleanly through.

In 2001, the technology existed to overlay graphics onto a dynamic background in real time. This is the WESCAM system.

StillDiggin has done some nice work showing the impossiblity of two of the simultaneous shots.

http://911logic.blogspot.com/

Why don't some of you Screw Loose change types have a go at debunking StillDiggin? I can tell you that his work is currently getting a lot of attention amongst truthers.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
These are not on a par with ILM. The pros would never just have the plane melt into the building with no crash physics. If they were going for realism, they would have it smash into pieces, and the wings would explode on impact.
Click to expand...


Much like the way debris "smashes into pieces" during high-energy storms such as tornados? Go wander through some storm damage sites since you seem to enjoy looking at disturbing pictures with no real concept of scale or comprehension.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
If they were going for realism, they would have it smash into pieces, and the wings would explode on impact.
Click to expand...
Uh, would you mind telling me why you think the wings would explode on impact? You're not thinking of Die Hard 2 are you?

TruthSeeker1234 said:
These are not on a par with ILM.
Click to expand...
Actually, they'd be far superior if fakes. Why? Well, what gives away low quality CGI effects? First, lighting; second, details; third, motion. ALL of the numerous videos of the impacts (taken from multiple angles it must be repeated) do not betray any of the standard giveaways for a CGI shot.

I can spot a special effects shot a mile away, there are very few I can't recognize on the first viewing. None of the video images (AND still camera images it must be repeated again) were fakes. To assert so is just, well, ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Tokorona said:
The WESCAM has a minor requirement, Ace. A screen to display on. It's mostly scanning.

Secondly, the "nose" is debris being pushed ahead of the impact. This is simple.
Click to expand...


The fuselage can be described as an aluminum tube guiding its contents through the building. Horrifically what ace is describing as "Pinocchio's nose" most likely contains the remains of the passengers being ejected through the north side of the building along with luggage, cargo, and aircraft interior finish.
 
Tokorona said:
The WESCAM has a minor requirement, Ace. A screen to display on. It's mostly scanning.

Secondly, the "nose" is debris being pushed ahead of the impact. This is simple.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of eyewitnesses who say there was no plane, just an exploding tower. If Pinocchio's nose is something real, why does it not appear in the WB live video, or any of the live videos except the Fox chopper 5 video?

And why did the engineer fade out the feed from chopper 5?

And where is the link to the NIST study on the impact videos?

Or was that simply another one of Gravy's filthy lies?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
........ What's impossible is for a passenger jet to crash into a twin tower and exhibit no crash physics of any kind. Not physically possible.
Click to expand...

Any chance of a link to the crash physics of which you speak? Is there a troofer physicist explaining why a jet could not penetrate the building?. A much smaller, much slower moving B25 seemed to have no problem entering the Empire State Building.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
There are plenty of eyewitnesses who say there was no plane, just an exploding tower.
Click to expand...
And what about the many more who saw the whole thing?

I can still remember the video taken from near the base of the WTC towers, looking up at an extreme angle at the first burning tower. Then in flies the second jet and it smashes into the second tower. All of which was in a fairly good close-up view.

And that's just one of the many videos of the impacts. I don't think anyone's ever counted how many separate angles there are of the second impact, but offhand I'd guess it has to be at least one or two dozen.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Uh, would you mind telling me why you think the wings would explode on impact? You're not thinking of Die Hard 2 are you?

Actually, they'd be far superior if fakes. Why? Well, what gives away low quality CGI effects? First, lighting; second, details; third, motion. ALL of the numerous videos of the impacts (taken from multiple angles it must be repeated) do not betray any of the standard giveaways for a CGI shot.

I can spot a special effects shot a mile away, there are very few I can't recognize on the first viewing. None of the video images (AND still camera images it must be repeated again) were fakes. To assert so is just, well, ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Answer my questions Corsair.

Why does Pinocchio's nose appear in the one live shot, not in the other live shots like the WB?

Where is NIST's study on the impact videos? Or were the posters lying about that?

What about StillDiggin's work?

Are you really going to try and convince me you can't see anything wrong with this picture?

impact.jpg
 
Par said:
Well (fading to black), at least, doesn’t have to have anything to do with whether the artefact is “real” or not.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. The engineer faded to black because he saw the nose of the digital airplane come out the other side of the stinkin' tower. OOPS. Fade to black, kill the overlay, then fade back up. That's what they did.

Knowing they had to cover for this mistake, they then had to add the nose into other shots, which only emerged much later. They also added fake flames to make the nose go away. These flames are in some shots, not others, and they are a different color than the real flames.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Of course it does. The engineer faded to black because he saw the nose of the digital airplane come out the other side of the stinkin' tower. OOPS. Fade to black, kill the overlay, then fade back up. That's what they did.

Knowing they had to cover for this mistake, they then had to add the nose into other shots, which only emerged much later. They also added fake flames to make the nose go away. These flames are in some shots, not others, and they are a different color than the real flames.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the videos were falsified is precisely the point at issue and relying on the idea that they were as a premise is the fallacy of begging the question.
 
Incidentally, if video falsification were the only possible explanation for this fade-out then perhaps it would make for more compelling evidence. But, of course, it is far from the only possible explanation, let alone the most parsimonious one.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
And none of them show the impact, all are from the opposite side. The only live shot that came close to actually showing the impact was Fox Chopper 5, and they screwed it up.

The WB clip is interesting, because there is no trace of Pinocchio's nose. Also, nobody felt the need to quickly fade to black. Only the Fox Chopper 5 shot, with Pinocchio's nose, has the quick fade out.

OOPS!

Why on earth would Chopper 5 do the quick fade out?

The money shots actually showing the plane entering the building all came out later. They all display impossible physics, what Evan Fairbanks described as "like a bad special effect".
Click to expand...

There is no trace of any detail because it is a zoomed out shot, taken from many miles away, that has obviously been highly decompressed.

The shot has a blip (lasting all of 10 frames) because the original broadcaster of that video is WNYW who had equipment atop WTC1. And WTC2 has just been hit by a jet, which exploded.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
And where is the link to the NIST study on the impact videos?

Or was that simply another one of Gravy's filthy lies?
Click to expand...



Of course, you'll just dismiss this as "NIST is part of the cover up", so I don't know why I'm bothering, except for a desire to once again show twoofers are too damn lazy to do even the most basic searching, but if you click this link (I know you won't but at least pretend to, to humour me):

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf

and search on "video" (you know, the way Gravy suggested you do it) you'll find 93 intances, where they explain what videos they looked at, and how they were used.

Now, of course, they don't explicitly say, "Oh, and by the way, we realized all the videos are real, and "pinnochio's nose" is just an artifact." But don't you think (and here, I use the generic "you", as BS1234 certainly won't think this) that they'd have noticed some anomalies in the course of their (very detailed!) examination of all these (note: original, not crappy youtube versions) videos?

But of course, this is all just "another one of Gravy's filthy lies".

Well, somebody's filthly lies, anyways.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Answer my questions Corsair.
Click to expand...
One thing at a time, if you please. Let's first deal with your assertion that the wings should have exploded immediately after striking the tower. On what basis do you make that claim? I trust it's something more substantial than having watch Hollywood movies featuring crashing/exploding aircraft.
 
videos & NIST

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

page 15 of 298
page 33 of 298
page 35 of 298
page 38 of 298
page 40 of 298
page 132 of 298
page 133 of 298
page 134 of 298
page 135 of 298
page 139 of 298
page 149 of 298
page 158 of 298
page 166 of 298
page 171 of 298
page 177 of 298
page 180 of 298
page 193 of 298
page 196 of 298
page 214 of 298
page 226 of 298
page 232 of 298
page 269 of 298

and thats only NIST NCSTAR 1
 
Last edited:
Mancman said:
There is no trace of any detail because it is a zoomed out shot, taken from many miles away, that has obviously been highly decompressed.

The shot has a blip (lasting all of 10 frames) because the original broadcaster of that video is WNYW who had equipment atop WTC1. And WTC2 has just been hit by a jet, which exploded.
Click to expand...

Congratulations on at least trying to explain the fade to black, but your explanation is provably false. An interuption of the signal would produce noise, not black, and not a fade out.

Would anyone else like to attempt to explain the quick fade to black on the chopper 5 feed?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Would anyone else like to attempt to explain the quick fade to black on the chopper 5 feed?
Click to expand...

Sure. Someone screwed up.

ETA: Make that: Someone in the heat and panic and horror of that moment, screwed up.
 
Last edited:
Par said:
If it’s provable, by all means, please prove it.
Click to expand...



The mistake you make here is thinking TS1234 is using the same definition of "provable" as the rest of us. Here's a little primer on TSSpeak:

provable: I looked at it and decided what I should have seen.

crater: a large pile of debris.

20%: 99.9%

less than 0.001%: A lot more than that.

"Hunt the Rubble": Ignore the rubble.

cylindrical holes: any kind of holes at all.

missing: right there in front of you.

Judy Wood: qualified engineer.


Did I miss any important ones?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Congratulations on at least trying to explain the fade to black, but your explanation is provably false. An interuption of the signal would produce noise, not black, and not a fade out.

Would anyone else like to attempt to explain the quick fade to black on the chopper 5 feed?
Click to expand...

Have you closely analysed this video?

I opened it up in VirtualDub. On my version, the object first pokes out (by a couple of pixels) of the north wall at 12:080. The first sign of signal disruption is at 12:320. The next frame is black, at 12:360.

So this 'engineer' who inserted the fade has a remarkable reaction time of 0.28 seconds, maximum. Since the 'nose' does not really become noticable until 12:160, and the first sign of disruption is 12:320, an even more amazing reaction of 0:16 seconds is more likely. 0.16 seconds to notice a huge mistake, rationalise it, and insert the fade which itself lasts under 0.6 seconds.

Maybe you can explain the artifact in the frame at 12:320, the frame before it turns black. What is that, if not a signal disruption?
10252464625d41780f.gif
 
Par said:
Whether or not the videos were falsified is precisely the point at issue and relying on the idea that they were as a premise is the fallacy of begging the question.
Click to expand...

If you would like examples of "begging the question" or "assuming the conclusion" look to the 911 commission report and NIST.

911 commission assumed the entire official story about hijackers, planes etc, and only looked for "intelligence failures" that might have led to it.

NIST assumed building collapses, and only studied the events leading up to the point of initiation, then stopped the timeline.

One must always begin logical reasoning with some set of assumptions. Assuming the the plane crash videos to be real, we conclude that impossible physics took place. Therefore, either the laws of physics were violated, or the videos are fake.

Assuming the chopper 5 video is real, it is difficult to understand why the engineer would fade the video feed to black right after one of the most dramatic moments in news history. Assuming a fake plane added on top of a real shot of the towers, it makes perfect sense why a video engineer would fade down to black. He or she saw something go wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom