

Below you'll find a list of some of the false claims, distortions, and misrepresentations found in Ace Baker's (a.k.a. Collin Alexander) specious 9/11 conspiracy film series entitled 9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera ( 06 What Planes? and 07 The Key) specifically chapters which asserts that the video footage of the airplane attacks on the World Trade Center (all of it) is fake--fabrications of the American Government and complicit news media as part of a false-flag operation to deceive Americans and fellow world citizens.



These on one mirrored channel and with overwhelmingly positive responses). On the surface, the presented arguments may sound persuasive, as if they're based on "facts". In truth, they hinge on erroneous assumptions, fallacious reasoning, and dishonest manipulations of the evidence. These slickly produced videos seem to have misled a lot of people on YouTube ( receiving over a half million views





Ace Baker and his phony "Key".

Ironically, the haircut is real.

FALSE. In fact, this claim is simply an absolute lie. There were at least seven national and/or local (or locally affiliated) news stations broadcasting LIVE coverage on the morning of 9/11/2001, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, WB11, and local NY1. six of those stations captured the second plane while broadcasting live that morning. and one of those networks, CBS captured the plane with two different live cameras while switching.



This means that seven different news cameras captured the plane while broadcasting LIVE, not "three" as Ace claims.





So why does Ace baker claim that only three are confirmed to have been shown live? What he means is that only three video clips have been confirmed to have been shown live by him, because only three of the live clips will work with his fake airplane/composite theory.



Ace asserts that the three live clips "just so happen" to have the necessary attributes which would make live video compositing possible and allow the insertion of a fake, computer animated, airplane into the live video feeds. Those necessary attributes are:

High contrast between tower and sky. "Steady camera" with no panning, tilting, or zooming. Airplane path is across sky only. Airplane disappears across straight vertical edge. Impact wall is hidden. No shadows required.

Ace states that, "Absent any one of these, inserting a fake airplane LIVE, in real time, becomes impossible".





He then asks, "What are the odds that this occurred by chance?" It becomes clear how ridiculous this question is, when you take the time to discover that Ace cherry-picked the clips that he says are "confirmed to have been shown live". So the odds are 100% because he arbitrarily chose which clips are "real", ignoring everything else.





Below are clips from the three LIVE broadcasts which, according to Ace, " are confirmed to have been shown live" and allegedly contain all of the necessary attributes for live compositing :





ABC:

Notice that, despite Ace's assertion that this shot was "put together nicely", it also clearly shows the alleged "nose-out" mistake:

Did the "perps" make the same composting error twice? Or is the alleged "nose-out" showing something real?





WB11 (Local WPIX):

FOX Chopper5 (local WNYW):

YouTube:





Notice that ONLY the WB11 clip was shot with a stable camera. The others were filmed using chopper-mounted cameras which were never truly "steady". So while there may not be any intentional "

panning, tilting, or zooming" at the moment of impact, the towers are never stationary within the frame. This makes these shots unusable for live compositing, and Ace ignores not only the potential problems, but the real ones as well, such as how the plane hits the building at exactly the correct floors while the towers are drifting in the frame.





Below are the airplane clips that ACE ignores which were also broadcast LIVE on 9/11:



CBS LIVE:



(national broadcast)

(CBS2 NY local broadcast)

(Raw from Queens) YouTube:(national broadcast) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJO1Y0bCykk (CBS2 NY local broadcast) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POALezpF9SY (Raw from Queens) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A9YVlk3WSI

Notice that both of these live camera shots do not meet the necessary criteria for live compositing, because there is not h igh contrast between tower and sky. This is why Ace does not include them in the "confirmed to have been shown live" category even though there is absolutely no evidence that they were not shown live.

Does Ace believe that CBS was not covering the WTC attacks live? Of course they were. What then does he believe they were broadcasting at the time of the second strike? Can he provide that for us? Can he provide ANY proof that this clip was not shown live? Of course he can't. If he could he would, so he simply ignores it.





NBC LIVE:

YouTube:





( LIVE Chopper4 close-up. Yes, it's a plane. )

three criteria for live compositing, including: Notice that this clip fails to meetcriteria for live compositing, including:

1. NO high contrast between tower and sky.



2. NOT a "steady camera" with no panning, tilting, or zooming (it's another chopper camera that's moving AND zooming with the plane in view).



3. Airplane path is NOT across sky only.

Again, why does Ace ignore this footage? There is NO reason to believe the NBC chopper footage was not broadcast live. The reason he ignores it is because it doesn't work with his contrived luma-key/composite theory.



NY1 Local LIVE:

This live clip would not work with Ace's theory, again, because there's not enough contrast between tower and sky. This clip, in full resolution format, has the longest view of the plane--25 seconds. For more info on this clip and ALL existing 9/11 airplane videos go to: http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit.html





The FOX Chopper5 video contains an editing mistake which reveals that a fake CGI airplane was added to the LIVE video feed. - 07 The Key From

FALSE. Pinocchio's nose" and Ace Baker refers to this alleged mistake as "The KEY to solving 9/11" in 07 - The Key . This supposed mistake has become known as the "nose-out" mistake or "in

Baker claims that this "mistake" is a smoking-gun which proves that the 9/11 airplane attacks were faked and never happened. The "key" he's referring to is a video editing tool called a "luma-key" which he alleges was used by the TV news media to fabricate LIVE composite videos of the WTC attacks that contain fake CGI airplane animations. Despite his elaborate efforts to sell this theory, however, it fails miserably for several reasons:

As mentioned above, a luma key will only work if the original video comprises all the required attributes. As also explained, only three of the seven live airplane videos contained those attributes. Ace Baker's luma-key theory, therefore, cannot be correct since it can't explain or account for the other four existing live clips that captured the 2nd plane.

The supposed smoking gun of Baker's "theory", the alleged nose-out "mistake" (a.k.a. " Pinocchio's nose"), hangs on the assumption that the apparent nose-shaped "object" observed exiting the north side of Tower 2 during the impact explosion, is indeed the intact nose of the plane. But this assumption is wrong, because it is derived from observing only a small sample of cherry-picked video clips. When all of the video footage of the plane's impact is examined and considered, it becomes quite obvious that the "nose" of the plane is actually an ejection cloud of dust, smoke, and debris. See for yourself here .

Even if one were stubborn enough to ignore the above two fatal flaws in Baker's "theory", it still fails absolutely. Why? Because the theory has a technical flaw, one that Baker himself has acknowledged but chose to hide from his audience. The flaw is this: The use of a luma-key, for the purpose of adding a fake plane animation to the live video, cannot accurately replicate what is seen in the live FOX footage of the 2nd plane impact. The flaw is a dead giveaway that proves a luma-key was not used in the live FOX Chopper5 footage as Baker has alleged.

Here is an explanation of the technical flaw in Baker's luma-key "theory" (or just skip to the video explanation below):

If a luma key had been used on the live Fox Chopper video footage, the exiting "nose" of the alleged animated CGI airplane would be visible on top of (in front of) the explosion exiting the tower. A luma-key works off of the luminance (brightness) within the video signal. In order to see an airplane animation that has been sandwiched in between two duplicate layers of video from the same camera feed (3 layers altogether), the top layer would require portions of the image to be cut out, revealing the added airplane layer underneath. When this is done using a luma-key, a predetermined brightness threshold (limit) is set which will prevent any portion of the video image from showing that is brighter than that threshold, making those brighter portions disappear completely. In this case, the brightness threshold would have to be set to a point where it would eliminate the entire sky background (of the top layer only) while leaving the darker Twin Towers intact. The catch is that the flame, caused by the fuel explosion that erupts from the opposite side of the tower, is as bright as the sky. This means that the flame would also disappear just as the sky does, revealing the layer behind it which supposedly contains the animated plane and it's protruding nose. The fact that the flame does NOT disappear, that we see it covering and obscuring the "nose" of the plane, is proof that a luma key was not used.

In the video below, I demonstrate why the flame-over-nose in the live Fox chopper footage is a dead giveaway that Ace's luma-key theory is impossible.













Ace maintains that ALL the video clips of the 2nd plane that were broadcast live were fabricated using this luma-key compositing method, and that it's the only way it could have been done. Since I demonstrate by exactly replicating Ace's work that it contains an irreconcilable flaw which is observable in his own video --AND--considering that he ignored live video which, by his own criteria, would not work for live compositing, it's safe to say that Ace has debunked himself and that the LIVE video clips of the 2nd plane are indeed real.



Please be aware that Ace himself acknowledges that the point I make here rgarding the luma-key is correct , and so he attempts to explain away the problem with a contrived back-story. Read his excuse on his own research blog:









– Wait a minute--according to ACE--isn't the FOX Chopper5 footage supposed to be genuine footage that "has been confirmed to have been shown LIVE" and which reveals a "mistake" that we weren't supposed to see? – So now he's back-pedaling, claiming that the genuine live Fox chopper footage is not genuine live footage! He says it was altered to cover the mistake. It's just that when the perps covered the mistake, they didn't really cover it, they just tried to make it look like it was supposed to be there by adding a little flame to it (apparently thinking nobody would wonder how the nose survived intact, or where it went after coming out the opposite side). – This also means that the "perps" must have just simply hoped that nobody out there (among the millions of potential audience members) was recording the live broadcast who would have ended up with an incriminating copy of the "real" live footage (which--amazingly--worked out for them lucky perps!). Gee, that makes a lot of sense, Ace. Nice theory. – There's no wonder why Ace didn't include any of this information in his video. It makes no frigging sense. If you have been a believer in Ace's theory and are not upset by this significant omission, you should be.

Get more information on ALL existing 9/11 airplane video clips at: http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit.html



Find out about the MANY existing still photos of the second plane here:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html



Watch my YouTube Amateur Video Playlist here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLk1HVK2Mg1KcS_Y3_xJmLxQfabVEvOEUG

-

FALSE.

In fact,

back in August of 2009 on

his own Blog . Yet he continues to propagate this lie in

the latest version of which was published on YouTube by Ace himself on May, 29, 2012, three years after admitting he was wrong. He has made no effort to correct or amend the error, instead continuing to use this fallacy to prop his flimsy argument and mislead his audience.



See why the plane is indeed in the wide shot in this excellently produced video:

















FALSE . Ace's stabilization of the video clip is flawed. You can easily tell by how jittery the station ID banner looks in his stabilized footage. The I.D. banner, being a graphic overlay, serves as a perfectly stable point of reference. When Ace stabilizes the towers in the clip, the station I.D. graphic should have no more movement than did the buildings in the original clip. It should move in exactly the same manner, but in the reverse direction. However, in his "stabilized" clip, the station I.D. graphic is extremely jittery with exaggerated movement as compared to the original camera motion. The towers (and other buildings in the frame) were not jittery like that in the original shot. This tells you his stabilization process was flawed. When done more accurately, it looks like this:









FALSE

. This is just another lie. And Ace continues to perpetuate it to this day. Numerous clips are available by way of a FOIA petition filed in 2010 by the

Hundreds of 9/11 videos (including dozens of the plane) have been released and are available to the public for free via the

The 9/11 Dataset Project



In January of 2011, The Dataset Project published Release #14 comprising 942GB of video in original, full resolution, uncompressed, DV format, including numerous video clips of the 2nd plane.



For convenience, I have compiled many of the original quality airplane clips in one place for easy download. Though most of these clips are available in high quality for viewing on YouTube (see link to playlist below) keep in mind that all YouTube videos are compressed. Original format files are much too large for online streaming, so if you really want to see the original quality , you will have to download the large AVI files. Get the clips here

https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8b6d6486586172bdab6a





Watch the YouTube playlist here:



Get more info about the video footage released by The Dataset Project at 911conspiracy.tv which has a NIST FOIA Map

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/NIST_FOIA.html



Ace Baker knows about these clips, but refuses to acknowledge them. In fact, it appears that he may have used some of them in his own videos, yet he maintains that he "offers a $100,000 reward to anyone who has an ORIGINAL QUALITY 9/11 airplane video". Obviously this is nothing more than a ploy and is a complete joke.

Numerous high quality clips are also available for download from the NIST WTC Data Repository at: http://wtcdata.nist.gov/ Various high quality clips from the NIST FOIA releases can be viewed on YouTube on the following channels:

WTC FOIA Videos



TheMKMonarch



WTC911demolition



CTV911



relapsed1









-

FALSE

. Two points to be made here:

1. First of all, the size of the impact damage doesn't really increase following the fuel explosion. Ace simply stops the clip before the extent of the impact damage becomes evident.





2. Secondly, the low resolution of the video fails to show the detail of the impact hole. When compared to a higher resolution photograph, it becomes clear that the "gaping hole" is not so gaping. Much of what looks like a hole in the video is simply where the outer aluminum cladding was blown off of the exterior of the building, revealing the darker steel beams underneath.









FALSE.

Physical and photographic evidence from the scene along with eyewitness testimonies tell a different story.



Read first-responder eyewitness accounts of airplane debris here:





-

From

FALSE — a independent teams of research physicists and engineers All of the research is in 100% agreement that what is seen in the video footage of the WTC attacks is not only possible, but expected according to the laws of physics. t least according to the numerouswho have actually studied the impacts, including researchers from MIT's Crashworthiness Laboratory, The University of Akron, Purdue University, Kajima Corp., etc. Detailed research using various approaches and methods has been published by these researchers in various peer-reviewed, professional and scientific journals.

Question: Do you know how much scientific research exists that supports the "impossible physics" claim? Answer: ZERO.

See links to the above mentioned research here: Published Scientific Research on the Physics of the WorldTrade Center Airplane Impacts





Morgan Reynolds explains 9/11 "physics".









* * *



