May 18, 2014

Conspiracy Theory FAIL: The 9/11 Video Fakery No-Planes Theory (The Lies of Ace Baker)

9/11 no planes

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 (specifically chapters 06 What Planes? and 07 The Key) 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 slickly produced videos seem to have misled a lot of people on YouTube (receiving over a half million views 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.

Debunking "The Key"
Ace Baker and his phony "Key".
Ironically, the haircut is real.

Contained in this post:

Lies from 07 The Key:
Lies from 06 What planes?


Only THREE 9/11 airplane videos are confirmed to have been shown LIVE. - From 07 The Key (at 3:30).
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 himbecause 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:
  1. High contrast between tower and sky.
  2. "Steady camera" with no panning, tilting, or zooming.
  3. Airplane path is across sky only.
  4. Airplane disappears across straight vertical edge.
  5. Impact wall is hidden.
  6. 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:

YouTube: (national broadcast)

  • 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):

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:

(national broadcast)
(CBS2 NY local broadcast)
(Raw from Queens) 

  • Notice that both of these live camera shots do not meet the necessary criteria for live compositing, because there is not high 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. 


9-11LIVE NBC Local NY Broadcast of 2nd Airplane Strike

(LIVE Chopper4 close-up. Yes, it's a plane.)
  • Notice that this clip fails to meet three criteria 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:

The FOX Chopper5 video contains an editing mistake which reveals that a fake CGI airplane was added to the LIVE video feed. - From 07 The Key
FALSE. This supposed mistake has become known as the "nose-out" mistake or "Pinocchio's nose" and Ace Baker refers to this alleged mistake as "The KEY to solving 9/11" in 07 - The Key

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.
If Ace Baker's theory is correct and it's the "nose" of a computer generated plane animation that can be seen exiting the opposite side of the tower, then why doesn't the nose hold its shape?
The alleged nose can clearly be see morphing and expanding as it exits. A computer generated graphic would not do that.

See more on why the alleged "nose" is not the nose of the plane here:

Get more information on ALL existing 9/11 airplane video clips at: 

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

Watch my YouTube Amateur Video Playlist here:

There is NO PLANE IN THE WIDE SHOT in the Chopper5 video prior to the camera zooming-in as the chopper approaches the towers. - From 07 The Key (at 5:46)
FALSE. In fact, Ace admitted that that he was wrong about this back in August of 2009 on his own Blog. Yet he continues to propagate this lie in 07 - The Key, 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

When the FOX Chopper5 video is stabilized, the plane's motion becomes jittery, proving that it's a fake animation inserted into the footage. From o6What Planes? (at 16:08)
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:

All existing 9/11 airplane videos have reduced picture quality in order to "hide the messy fingerprints of the compositing process". - From 07The Key (at 40:51)
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 International Center For 9/11 Studies. 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 at

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: 

Watch the YouTube playlist here: 

Get more info about the video footage released by The Dataset Project at which has a NIST FOIA Map:

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.

There were very few eyewitnesses, and when looking through the FDNY and EMT accounts, you find only ONE person who said they saw the plane, heard it, and watched it crash. - Morgan Reynolds from 06 - What Planes?  (paraphrased).

FALSE. This is another outright lie and reveals the shameless dishonesty of both Ace Baker and Morgan Reynolds. Numerous first-responders testified unequivocally that they saw with their own eyes (and heard) the second plane. Several also reported seeing airplane parts and debris. Taken directly from the the 9/11 Oral History Records, I have compiled quotes from those first-responder eyewitnesses. Take a look for yourself here:

The Michael Hezarkhani footage ("ghost-plane" video) shows a big gaping hole that appeared AFTER the fuel explosion and is larger than the initial damage area of the impact, something that cannot be explained by the fuel explosion.  - From 07 The Key (at 23:39)

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.

There was no airplane debris below the impact zone. - Morgan Reynolds from 06 - What Planes? at1:43 (paraphrased).
FALSE. Physical and photographic evidence from the scene along with eyewitness testimonies tell a different story.
Piece of fuselage from UA175 found on the roof of WTC5 apparently showing
a portion of the plane's registration number as seen below (N612UA).

An exterior column panel with aircraft wheel embedded in window.
Photographed south of WTC1 at the intersection of Cedar and West St. 
Piece of  AA11 fuselage photographed near West and Cedar Street.

See more physical evidence here: 
Evidence of Airplane Debris from the WTC

Read first-responder eyewitness accounts of airplane debris here:

FALSE. What Ace ignores is the presence of a shadow being cast onto the building's south face due to the easterly position of the sun. It is clear that this is happening since the east face of the building is in direct sunlight. Because of the sun's position, the shadow on the south face would have a wedge-shape in relation to the building.

The above images are taken from a blog entitled 9/11Physics Truth. The author gets it exactly right. Just prior to the plane impacting the tower, it enters the shadow wedge on the south face of the building. 

From the position of Hezarkhani's camera (behind the impacting plane), the "puffballs" appear as they should--below the wings--exactly where the engine's impact the building. From the Fairbanks camera position (underneath the impacting plane), the visual effect of the shadow wedge comes into play. Only the extremities of the "puff balls" are lit by direct sunlight. The rest of them are in the shadow, causing them to visually blend in with the shaded facade. This creates the illusion that they're above the wings, but they are not. There is no real discrepancy.  
Above gif's originally posted by Ragasaias at forum

The impact and penetration of the 2nd plane into the South Tower as seen in video footage exhibits IMPOSSIBLE or "CARTOON" PHYSICS, and violates Newton's laws of motion. - From 06 What Planes? (at 2:25)
FALSEat least according to the numerous independent teams of research physicists and engineers who 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. 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.

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:
Morgan Reynolds explains 9/11 "physics".

Ace Baker interviews Morgan Reynolds about the impact physics, someone who is not a physicist and who has no academic or professional background in applied physics. There's a reason why he doesn't interview an actual  physicist on the subject--he can't find one that would agree with him. Even "truther" physicists Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Gregory Jenkins have said that the no-planes "theory" is false.  

Dr. Judy Wood, perhaps the ONLY "no-planer" qualified to actually address the subject (holding an advanced degree in applied physics), won't go near it, instead focusing on energy weapons from space, the dubious "Hutchinson Effect", and the role of off-shore hurricanes in the destruction of the twin towers. The reason for this is no mystery. If she could demonstrate, using physics, that the airplane penetrations of the Twin Towers were physically impossible, she would.

Morgan Reynolds talks about "physics", but doesn't ever provide any scientific data. What he offers are simply "appeals to common sense" and "arguments from incredulity", both of which are logical fallacies and have nothing to do with physics. 
       If the plane impacts, as seen in the video footage, truly exhibited a violation of the laws physics, it shouldn't be too hard to prove. Physics is all about mathematics. And math doesn't lie. If it could be demonstrated, scientifically, that the plane impacts are impossible according to the laws of physics, then proving 9/11 was an inside job is a slam dunk, because there is no possible explanation other than media manipulation and deception.
       If Ace Baker, Morgan Reynolds, and others believe that ALL the existing published research using mathematical and/or computer models is FALSE, why don't they try to prove it by funding their own research, creating their own "accurate" scientific computer simulations (as opposed to producing rock music videos which serve no purpose but to try to slander people who disagree with their point of view)?
       There's a reason why the truth movement hasn't done this. They CAN'T. If they could, they would. And the reason is that their impossible physics claims cannot be supported scientifically with physics. 

For more on WTC impact physics see:
Physicist Ryan Mackey's discussion of the WTC airplane impacts.

Ryan Mackey at 

Purdue University will not release the data used in their animated computer simulation of the plane impacting the North Tower. - From 06 What Planes? (at 19:06) 
FALSE. Purdue researchers published several articles containing data on the computer simulation project. Much of the information can be found on Purdue's own webpage about the project. You can find citations for the published articles in the above document link. They include, "Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I." by Irfanoglu, A., & Hoffmann, C. M., (2008), and "A high-quality, high-fidelity visualization of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center", Rosen, Paul, et al. (2008). 

However, the most comprehensive information on the modeling of the simulation can be found in a doctoral dissertation published in 2008 by engineer Ingo Brachmann entitled "ON EFFICIENT MODELING OF HIGH-VELOCITY FLUID SOLID IMPACT". Brachmann is credited for "Engineering Models" and "Simulation Setups" on the project. His dissertation comprises 347 pages of data used in Purdue's computer simulation of the North Tower plane impact.

Resources for further investigation:
Rebuttal of Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" Analysis (Salter 2007)
9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New York Theory
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC Speeds
Debunking "September Clues" and "No Plane" Theories
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows
American Airlines Flight 77 Evidence
The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement
Conspiracy Theory and Conspiracism
Fallacies and Propaganda

* * * 
Trust me. I'm an expert.
And a Rock Star!


  1. Jer-bo from youtube here. Great page man. Really detailed. I have an associates in applied science visual communication, but never used it and barely did any video editing, but all his claims and your debunk doesnt require a degree but common sense.

    Fyi, the NY1 vid didnt play, not sure if it was my ipad, just showed error loading.

    Hey also, i never heard of the hutchinson effect. I found something that supports your site even more. That guy doesnt have any degrees according to this (ref below)

    Hutchison came on the scene around 1979, but he has not been able to convince the scientific community that he is anything more than a crackpot. The same qualities that repulse the scientific community endear Hutchison to the mass media: the lone wolf genius with no degrees or academic background who shows the world you don't need no education to find a source of unlimited energy that costs nearly nuttin.

    You might have a better source that proves he does have an degree, not sure. But this just makes it even better

    Thanks and keep it up

    1. JB,

      Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate any input you can offer to correct mistakes or make the info here more complete. I'll check out that link on Hutchison. What's funny is that Ace Baker hates John Hutchison and has devoted a lot of space on his blog debunking him. Check it out:

      Those no planers are among the most religious of 9/11 Truthers and they can't agree or get along at all--each sect accusing the others of being part of the "Controlled Opposition". It's amazing that they've been able to dupe so many people into buying "no-planes" on 9/11.
      There is no genuine "No-Plane Theory". There are several proposals, but not one of them can stand on its own and/or account for the evidence, and they all contradict each other.

    2. Saul, although you probably know that I hosted the 'Hardfire' debate between the lunatic Ace Baker and video compositing expert Steve Wright, you don't know that I have archived my e-mail exchanges with the invincibly ignorant Morgan Reynolds.

      I'd be happy to share them with you.

      Ron Wieck

    3. Thanks for commenting. That sounds fascinating. If you're ever interested in writing a brief article summarizing that exchange I'd love to post it as, or part of, a Morgan Reynolds Fail blog entry.

    4. Perhaps I can provide something for you at a later date. The difficulty in engaging Morgan Reynolds stems from the fact that he is, above all, a fraud. I have often written that twoofers are characterized by stupidity, dishonesty, and insanity, in varying mixes. Ace Baker is a dogged liar, but his dishonesty proceeds from his mental illness.

      Reynolds, by contrast, is a respected economist who is wedded to nonsense regarding the jihadist attacks of 9/11. On some level, he understands that he peddles snake oil, as evidenced by his steadfast refusal to defend his crapola in debate.

      Our exchanges invariably end with me asking him to run his fantasies by a physics teacher and him telling me that he doesn't need a physics teacher.

      No progress is possible against closed minds.

    5. I came here hoping that I could actually debunk Ace Baker but everything he said is exactly as he said was. WTF? Why are you acting like you debunked him when you didnt at all? He just made you look shady as hell. What gives?

    6. @ flagg. You're joking. Right?

    7. The author is right: there are live shots not taken into consideration by Ace. These live shots do not support Ace's theory but do not support the crashing-planes theory either.

    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    10. Everyone knows that Ace Baker is a planted shill (Controlled opposition). He was given the job of making himself and other who know that No Planes were used look crazy. That is why he faked his Suicide on the Jim Fetzer show. So of course their are lots of errors and misconceptions in his video. You are you have debunked nothing!

    11. The energy of the aircraft is more than enough to damage the steel, but, because the aluminum is so much softer than steel, it breaks apart first, long before it reaches the point where the steel suffers any distortion. Here are the figures:

      The speed of air that will tear a plane apart at sea level densities is 500 mph.

      At 500 mph air creates a force equal to 674 pounds per square foot.

      If an aircraft is not carefully controlled in it's flight path, 500 mph air will rip it apart at a sea level air density of 14.7 psi.

      Okay, so that's how strong or weak an aircraft is. now let's see how much force it takes to break a 14 inch box steel column.

      Explosives experts will use a charge designed to move air at between 6818.2 mph and 20455 mph, which translates into forces of 125,370 pounds per square foot of pressure at the low end, to a high of 1,128,400 pounds per square foot of pressure respectively.

      So we have Aircraft............ 674.23 lb/sq.ft
      Steel box column:........125,370...... lb/sq.ft (low)
      Steel box column: ......1,128, (high)

      Worse yet is the fact that the aircraft has to break several steel columns, not just one.
      If the aircraft must break at any pressure above 674.23 lb/sq.ft. how
      can it possibly stay intact and exert a force of over 125 thousand
      pounds per square foot, to over 1 million pounds per square foot, on
      the steel columns? That would be like saying that an egg could
      penetrate a concrete wall if thrown hard enough. It can't. It will
      crack open and spread it's force over a wide area, without ever even
      coming close to generating the force needed to penetrate the concrete.

      A 100 ton hollow ball of clay, moving at 500 mph, does have the energy needed to destroy a steel box column, but, because of it's softness/inability to withstand the pressure/forces needed to damage the column, it will never do any damage to the steel. Thus the plane becomes a "bug on the windshield" in effect, it splatters.

    12. Yes where is the debunking that planes simply cannot fly this close to the ground at this speed?

    13. No planes were harmed in the making of the 9/11 disaster movie

    14. People can only believe the planes were real by ignoring all the physical evidence provided by the psychopaths responsible.

  2. Hi Saul,

    Your deconstruction of Ace Baker is very well done. You left the URL on my article on No-Planes Disinformation at the Hybridrogue1 blog on the 9th of July.

    I have a suspicion that you are someone who believes the majority of the official story about 9/11. I dispute that official story in other articles on my blog, while also disputing the 'crackpot theories' that are sort of the other pincer to the tongs making up the Psyops of 9/11.

    If you would read through the deductive argument put to the destruction of the WTC due to controlled demolition on my blog, I think I can convince you that the towers and bldg 7 were indeed demolished by explosives:

    Thanks again for a great article and for commenting on my blog,

    Willy Whitten - \\][//

    1. Plane vs wooden shed. The crash occurs at the six minute mark.

  3. By the way Saul,

    Your comments were in the moderation queue for several days, because I rarely receive comments from those I haven't already vetted on my blog.
    They are public now, and any other comments you would like to add are welcome, and should show up as you post them.


  4. The Jesuit order owns you people. As you bicker and fight, you are property. The American people will be disarmed in the future. Debunk that after it happens.

    1. Too much weed. Take it easy for a while. You'll be alright.

  5. Do you believe in a controlled demolition at all? So much work to discredit one man, much work but little wisdom.

    Do you also believe we went to the moon? And do you believe in the Bang Theory also? You heard of Operation Paperclip? Vatican Ratlines? Lots of work still to do


    2. Killclown is a total fool, and planes WERE used.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. The debris of the plane existed! They were collected immediately by the first responders and now are stored at... who cares?

    2. How can there possibly be any debris from an explosion that supposedly vaporized the titanium engines!!!! How on earth do you think that a piece of landing gear with RUBBER Tyre would survive? Any 'debris' was planted during the chaos, as it was on the perfectly manicured Pentagon lawn. :D

    3. Let's ignore all the footage for a moment and concentrate on one very important key fact;
      It is IMPOSSIBLE for THAT type of plane to fly at THAT speed at THAT altitude without it breaking apart. On that basis, ANY video footage showing that it not only manages to do THAT but then also manages to defy almost every scientific law by flying almost directly through numerous steel columns HAS to be deemed as fake, does it not?
      'Fly on windscreen' people....'fly on windscreen. ;)

    4. "Let's ignore all the footage . . ."
      When you have a theory--in this case that "it is IMPOSSIBLE for THAT type of plane to fly at THAT speed at THAT altitude without it breaking apart"--and then you have hard evidence (lots of it) that contradicts your theory, you should revise or discard your theory. That is the scientific method. You do not discard the evidence. When you dismiss evidence in order to preserve your theory, you are practicing religion, not science.

  7. Dr Judy Wood hits the nail on the head! 9/11 was and still is an Inside job!

  8. Very interesting, but I felt Ace's most compelling points were either not disproven or ignored completely. The cartoon physics was " debunked" by simply claiming some univerity studies say it's possible. Not very convincing. Also you left out anything about the wake vortex (or lack there of)

    1. Very interesting that you're more impressed with opinion and speculation regarding the impact physics from people (Reynolds and Baker) who have no education, background, experience, or credibility in the field, than you are with several scientific/experimental studies from experienced research physicists working independently. Seriously?

      As for the wake vortices, I also disagree with you. To me, that was one of the weakest of Baker's arguments. He shows you video clips of wake vortices from planes flying in typical kinds of conditions. But planes hitting the towers at full speed resulted in massive explosions. I think it's very likely that the pressure wave from such a violent explosion would have dwarfed any residual wake vortices in the air.

    2. Also i disagree with Dr. Wood on the "wing tips" claim", as it is clear in photos that columns are not broken where the tips should have entered. It looks like the aluminum cladding is cut but not the columns. Now, if the wing tips did not cut through the columns, where did they go exactly? You can't have both ways

    3. "if the wing tips did not cut through the columns, where did they go exactly?"
      The plane was shredded upon impact. Aluminum splinters when it impacts at high speeds. Any sections of the wings that did not enter the building, fragmented into a cloud of aluminum confetti. This is evident in the video footage.

    4. So if the plane shredded upon impact, then it couldn't have cut any core columns. If the core columns remained intact, why did the buiding collapse? After all, it was designed to withstand multiple strikes from a 707 @ 600mph.

    5. Btw, if you watch the impact in slow motion you can clearly see the plane disappear into the building without making an entry wound, then smoke puffs, then explosion. So the plane goes inside the building without leaving a scratch, then an explosion, and we're left a big plane sized hole. An obvious sign of an outward explosion.

    6. Sounds like you cracked the case. Congrats!

    7. Sounds like you're using sarcasm to avoid giving an intelligent rebuttal, because you obviously can't. The truth is you cannot deny the overwhelming amount of evidence of the no-plane theory.

    8. Seriously, if the plane shredded upon impact then how were the core columns cut??????

    9. "The truth is you cannot deny the overwhelming amount of evidence of the no-plane theory."
      Ha HA! That's a good one.

      "if the plane shredded upon impact then how were the core columns cut??????"
      When the plane fragments into pieces, all that matter (the pieces) don't just disappear, and neither does the kinetic energy. Perhaps you should watch the FEA simulations that I posted at the bottom of this page:

  9. You did NOT successfully debunk Baker's stabilization evidence. The graphics an logos bounced around precisely BECAUSE Baker properly stabilized the image. Those were burned onto the original video and therefore moved with the background. If those logos had NOT moved, then the video wouldn't be stabilized. This was a videotape, which did not contain a separate layer for graphics. You clearly don't understand what stabilization actually is or does.

    1. I believe you misunderstood my argument regarding the stabilization. I agree that the I.D. banner should move around in the stabilized footage, what I'm saying, though, is the movement should be exactly proportionate to the movement of the objects in the original (unstabilized) footage. This is not the case. The jittery motion of the banner graphic in his stabilized clip is exaggerated compared to the original camera movement, evincing that the stabilization is flawed. I believe there are several reasons for this, and that it might not be intentional on the part of Baker, but I believe that he understands the limitations to his stabilization "evidence", but chooses to conceal them from his audience.

    2. I've gone back and watched Baker's stabilization a couple of times and I see no evidence that the banner graphic is more jittery than the original camera movement. I think what you are perceiving may be an illusion created by the fact that we generally see footage like this where the graphic is fixed and our brains tolerate quite a lot of subject bouncing in the frame due to camera movement. This has actually become a videographic style in it's own right - by using handhelds and intentionally moving them around to create a "realistic" effect for TV shows, movies etc.

      But what we virtually never see is a graphic or logo floating around, so maybe it merely seems more jittery to you. We should simply ignore the graphics and focus on the tower images. They do seem to be perfectly stabilized, yet the plane seems to drift in quick jerky motions. I cannot figure this out unless he somehow manipulated the real plane in the stabilized footage - thus essentially faking a fake. Maybe that's what he did. It seems odd though, since he appears genuinely adamant about his position, and seems to believe his own story. But then, some people will go to extreme lengths to gain acceptance. He has shown himself to be extremely callous towards all of the other evidence showing the absurdity of his claims. I do love the music video though! Please share your several reasons why you believe his stabilization is flawed.

    3. I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. To me it appears obvious that the jitteriness of the banner graphic is dissimilar to the smooth motion of the camera which is equipped with gyroscopic stabilization.
      I think there are several reasons why stabilizing that footage is problematic. The low resolution/low quality (Ace was using footage from a VHS recording) and the fact that the chopper was miles away increase the likelihood of errors, i.e., the towers themselves are actually not that stable within the frame. There are atmospheric distortions as well as thermal distortions (due to the heat from the fire), not to mention the wind which can cause some movement. This is why when I stabilized the footage, I used a higher resolution clip and used foreground buildings as reference points rather than the towers themselves. And I got a much different, more accurate result.

    4. about "stabilization": when you upload a clip on the you tube channel, they usually ask you if you would like to stabilize your video. i find it staged (someone either left them on purpose like that or they were doctored to look more amateurish) that all those so called "amateur 9/11 videos" frames are still shaking.

  10. BTW, the reason I posted the previous comment is not because I'm an Ace Baker supporter. Quite the contrary. The stabilization argument was actually the ONLY of his no-plane evidence that I could not find a flaw in. Clearly it's impossible for chopper 5 to have been "live composited" because it would require a mask for the "exit flame" layer (plus the visual corroboration inso many other videos). How he ever could have not addressed that is beyond me since it ruins his entire theory. Here's another point that should be added to the implausibility of chopper 5 having been faked: Later in chapter 7, Ace discusses the use of the orange flashes as a way for having synchronized the collision in time and space between all the various videos which show the flashes. Actually, this is an interesting explanation which would make sense if the videos actually had been composited. I think this may be part of the reason Ace can't get over himself. It is brilliant, but it's just not true since these all could not have been so perfectly composited that they all corroborate each other. But the problem, for those that are buying into the no planes theory, is that there would be no reference point for insertion of a faked plane layer in either time OR space that would allow "compositraitors" to perfectly place the plane/expulsion behind the real fireball. BTW, Ace admits on the Hardfire show that the fireball was real in the chopper 5 video. So he's really just contradicting himself all over the place.

  11. Too bad the vast majority of the witnesses in your Oral History link do not say they saw a plane. I sampled 25 or so names and found only one (the first name on the list) who said they saw a plane. The others heard about the plane from people who saw it on TV, from rumors in the street, etc. So there appear to only be a handful, maybe 10-20 in that list, who claim to have seen a plane. Studies show that fake video will convince upwards of 50% of witnesses will say they saw something they didn't if shown fake video afterwards.

    1. Bullshit. Too bad you're so deluded that you've become dishonest.

  12. Also, a very large number of firefighters who did say they saw a plane probably just saw the explosion and then assumed there had been a plane. At the time the interviews were given virtually no one was questioning the existence of the plane. So if you saw the explosion or even smoke afterwards, you'd say you saw the plane hit, because you're assuming the existence of the plane. Like in all the 'amateur' videos, where no one reacts to the plane, they only react after the explosion happens.

    1. Your speculations are meaningless, but thanks for your opinion.

  13. Great website – very impressive work! Dick Eastman has battled the "no-planers" (Morgan Reynolds, Judy "Space Beams" & the gang) and their fallacies/lies/obfuscations for years. Here's a radio debate where Eastman demolishes no-planer Jim Fetzer – enjoy:

  14. Great work here. I was just curious about tower 7 because it was obviously pre-wired for demolition, which ended up being a real blessing. Are all new buildings pre-wired these days?

    1. Building 7 wasn't pre-wired for demolition. It was simply hit by Tower One.

  15. The "No Planers" are dogmatic and banned me from questioning the No Plane hypothesis on Facebook's "All Theories Welcome" group. There is more than 1 reason to fake photos. We do not have to jump to the "no planes" conclusion. Any outcome that is against the official story that planes entered the WTC and burst into flames would be a reason to fake photos. If the plane parts fell to the ground that would be a reason. Thousands of plane parts were found outside the WTC walls. I linkes to your page from

  16. Someone paid you to write this 'debunking'.

  17. I think history itself is a lie:
    Follow the very real paper trail of treaties and government constitutions all the way back in time....learn how the aristocracy still exists in more ways than you may know-

  18. I'd love to comment and debate this point by point. The only problem is this is a vetted blog, which makes is a bully pulpit with you having the last word. My father taught me a long time ago never to agree with a fool, because people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. If you're ever man enough to debate me one-on-one without the power to moderate or edit my responses, then let me know.

    1. Sounds like excuses. The only comments I delete are spam and hate speech. If you can prove anything I've said on here is incorrect, not only will I allow you to post it, I will correct it.

    2. As a flight attendant at the time of 9/11 I would ask, what happened to our flight crews in this theory? As well as our passengers? These are people we know don't exist anymore after that day. It's fine to do a mental exercise in pseudo-science but what about the people we knew that are gone? There is always a psychological denial after a mass tragedy especially when seen in person. (Now on TV.) It's a coping mechanism within PTSD. (People who saw the Hindenburg fire were referred to as "the witnesses" and treated kindly many years later.) But really why not use planes?

  19. All this informations is really good, i've never heard something like this and i think it is a little bit conspiratorial but really nice post, I enjoy it a lot

  20. Thank you for sharing such great information. It has help me in finding out more detail about Live Video!

  21. Also if no planes were used then where did the passengers that so happened to disappear on that day go? What's next? 9/11 never happened?

  22. i call bs...planes crashed into building, end

  23. nothing else is to be said...just let it go

  24. 15 years ago and people still cant accept the fact

  25. You can't debunk the No Planes Theory. It's obvious there were no planes. Any fool can see that!

    1. On the contrary; Anybody can debunk the No Planes theory, because there WERE planes. Only fools claim otherwise.

  26. At least Ace Baker puts his name to his claims where is yours?

    1. I put the facts right in front of you, complete with references for the info provided. My name is irrelevant.

  27. first of is the author here saying none of the videos are clearly faked, and that the black screens regarding Pinocchio's nose happen? two other point,can we do a scientific comparison regarding the shape of the supposed nose as it first appears to the nose of the plane that appears in the video up to that point? and second are going to say the supposed nose that first appears seems distinct and hold its shape and then change rather suddenly into smoke?

    1. If you look around my blog here, you might find answers to some of the questions you're asking.

  28. I would like to know more about the university studies quoted here which purport solid science that the behavior of the plane's exterior configuration is expected behavior according to the laws of physics Certainly some rudimentary explanation of the criteria they used must be available the the laymen or moderately informed interested party. Do we have some kind of quantifiable data in terms of the resistance of the exterior mesh. Whatever quantity was used it would interesting if these researchers could formulate that estimate to the resistant force in a way that would correlate with the expected resistance at the pentagon? It seems to be automatically assumed the nose of the plane went through between the floors therefore avoiding the more serious resistance of the three feet thick concrete slab floors? Did they do separate comparisons for the resistance of the floors compared to the relative open space between the floors as opposed to the slabs? Why not include the actual links to the research as well


    2. Neither of my question here were answered. the question were in regard to intact columns where the plane went through, supposedly. and what kind of criteria are used to determine the amount of resistance of various parts of the building in a scientifically quantifiable manner

  29. and finally maybe somebody could tell me the outline of the damage to the facade of the towers would not have to include the entire outline of the plane. One can argue that additional lateral damage to the facade could have occurred but that does not change the question of whether a minimum correspondence of damage that coincides wit the areas of penetration by the plane must exist. In other rather simplistic words where we saw the plane go trough the building the buildings face can no longer inhabit that region Yes on No?


    2. So my reply above was in regard to this post, so sorry about the mistake.While this link has nice shots and can outline a lot of the planes suppose penetration, it is clearly missing the tips the planes the vertical stabilizer etc. Why not superimpose the image of the plane over the hole. Instead of just rough drawings

  30. you just want to cover up the fact, This "incident" only reason the US government to invade the middle east.

  31. Good article BUT your diligence identifying of all the aircraft components has now thrown a serious shadow over the supposed aircraft attack at the Pentagon and the downed plane in Pennsylvania - where are the same bits - I worked on Douglas DC 8's for the first 6 years of my working life back in the late 60's - where are the engine turbine sections normal operating temperature 1100 degrees C- where are the supposed aircraft tail sections sticking up in the air like we always see in crash sights in the USA - these attacks where at ground level "targets" they could/may not be buried under 650,000 tons of steel (per tower) as in New York - where are the BITS????? - I have been aboard a downed DC8 within hours after it hitting the ground killing 2 members of the Training grew and spreading it's self over 800 yards adjacent to the main runway and breaking into three (3) major body groups- WHERE ARE THE BITS at the Pentagon and sunny pastoral Pennsylvania

    1. Seriously? So the US chooses to kill 4,000 or its own citizens, not to mention overseas tourists, in order to justify an invasion of the Middle East? Why not just fake some emails or doctor video of "jihadists" making threats?

      If you seriously think your government is so batshit insane it would deliberately kill thousands of its own citizens - regardless of the reason - then why on earth do you still live there? I would hightail my way out as fast as I could!

      But then again, I live in Australia, where we live in peace with a strong democracy, a good education system, free universal health care, no guns, very little religion and no people who are insane enough to seriously think their government wants to kill them.

      I'd advise you to move somewhere like here. Not here, but somewhere like here.

  32. The one thing I have never understood about the no planes theory. Is that the effort required to simulate the effects of a plane crashing into a tower seems huge, holograms, disguised drones, beams from space etc.etc.etc..
    Maybe I'm lazy but if I were a government looking to stage a suitable horrific attack, I would just find a set of lunatics prepared to fly a plane into a building, and the suitably inspire/encourage/fund/train them to do so. Far cheaper than laser beams from space and no messing about with holograms or SEAL teams to plant explosives. But hey i'move just lazy

  33. And that's exactly what they did.
    The only problem being that the terroist pilots accused of committing the crimes were in no way capable of pulling off such incredibly tight manuvoures in such craft. The official 9/11 account has so many holes you might mistake it for cheese.

    Try this for scientific evidence and then try to argue it wasn't anything else but an inside job:

    1. Video not available. But I don't have to read that to know it WASN'T an inside job.

  34. maybe youre right on some of the unimportant details, but a 767 can't fly at that speed at sea level, not even in a dive, and if it was trying it would certainly need to choose the perfect line at the beginning because any change in direction would surely rip it to shreds.

    Then once it would touch 44 steel columns and 7 or 8 one acre concrete slabs with giant spandrel plates in front of them it would be smashed to bits while barely damaging the building and then it would fall to the ground outside the building.

    That makes you a lying sack of crap, debunker doofus.

    1. When you have a theory--in this case that " a 767 can't fly at that speed at sea level, not even in a dive"--and then you have hard evidence (lots of it) that contradicts your theory, you should revise or discard your theory. That is the scientific method. You do not discard the evidence. When you dismiss evidence in order to preserve your theory, you are practicing religion, not science.

  35. A very good job on all points, except the puff ball. Fairbanks had his camera taken away from him. It was returned to him after more than a week. The puff anomaly very likely was not discovered, but as put there to be found to give some basis for the no-planes justice-obstructing falsehood to have something empirical on its side. It is falsified evidence. Morgan Reynolds worked in the White House with Ted Olsen and Karl Rove. Reynolds knew of me from 1980 when we were at Texas A & M. In March of 2002 I was presenting evidence that Boeing 757 flew over the Pentagon as something else struck from a slightly different direction -- and the evidence was solid. They could not contradict the evidence or the implications. Also, in 2006, Dr. Steven Jones had just discovered thermite in the WTC dust. Then it was that Fetzer and Reynolds appeared, trapping Jones into attaching himself to Fetzer with Scholars for 9-11 Truth -- at which point Fetzer began discrediting the organization by bringing in Rosalee Grable, Gerard Holmgren and Rosalee Grable followed by Reynolds saying that no planes hit the WTC. The planes were directed by remote control and there was a definite stand-down -- so the idea was to mislead and confuse and frustrate the public with the absurd claim that the 50 videos were tampered with and all of the witnesses were liars. When people like you were willing to do the work to patiently expose the deceptions, Fetzer created a fall-back position, that everyone saw holograms. BUT DEFINITELY THE CRIME INCLUDED THE TACTICS TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, AND FALSE THEORIES WAS THEIR PRIMARY RELIANCE. The puff was edited to appear as though behind the wing in the Fairbanks video. Justice requires finding those who took Fairbanks' camera and from them finding everyone who worked on it.

  36. Whether is was planes or not it helps to get into the VERY sick mindset of the REAL perps behind this 9/11 false flag. As was written up in their Neocon (Jewish) Project for a New American Century, they needed a 'new Pearl Harbour'. What featured in that? Why kamikaze pilots flying airplanes into things (IMAGE!!!]
    So they NEEDED/NEED the IMAGE of planes flying into the phallic number 11 (a fave 'power number' of these criminals who are also into the occult).
    THIS is why all evidence of BOMBS was and still is suppressed concerning how ALL the buildings came down. First time in history that one, ...t w o, THREE steel structured towers came down due to fire in ONE city, on ONE day. You don't even get this sht in James Bond movies and they are pretty far fetched, to say the least.

    So yeah, they HAD, HAD, to have success in instilling the IMAGE into the public psyche of planes flying into the Towers. Towers of course also having enormous mythical and occult significance.

    1. 9/11 was no false flag, and PNAC wanted the government to rebuild their defenses WITHOUT a "new Pearl Harbor." Furthermore, the "new Pearl Harbor" didn't necessarily have to be the 9/11 attacks. It could've been the Millennial Bombing if that hadn't been thwarted. Or it could've been a USS Cole-style attack on Newport News, Virginia. Or it could've just as easily been some of the attempted attacks that were thwarted after the 9/11 attacks.

      And the alleged "evidence of bombs" isn't being suppressed. It's simply not real.

  37. They made a really big mistake here. The engine shown flying over and landing on Murry street is not only the wrong engine (it is the engine from a 747 lol) but even worse... It's 4 feet wide. Now the box columns of the blgd are 16 inches on 40 inch centers.
    That means there is only 2 feet between them. So how does a 4.ft engine pass between them without breaking one?

    The answer of course is it cannot. Therefore it had to be planted.

    1. And just how exactly do you think "they" could've planted it? Did they dig up Andre the Giant from his grave and raise him from the dead so he'd carry it there and hope nobody would notice. Or did they use a forklift and think nobody would pay attention? You claims about all there parts being "planted" have no logic.

  38. I noticed many of the comments involve the use of character assassination. So instead of debating the forensic science from 911, and in learning from this evidence. The naysayers attack the people that are actually seeking truth to find answers to the questions! Involving the flight envelop of the aircraft, the aircraft flight capabilities at flying near to sea level with the engines, the flight surfaces to control flight at recorded air speed. No recorded vortex seen from video revealing the wing flight surfaces. Involving the laws of physics for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. Ever seen when a high speed car hit an oak tree? Never have I seen the car go thru the oak tree. I see where the car wraps around the main trunk of the tree, This is called physics. The laws of physics do not change from one day to another! But what we seen on 9/11 is impossible regarding the laws of physics. But to this day many Americans have chosen to be willingly ignorant to this information. Even in the bible Jesus makes a very revealing statement. My people perish for a lack of knowledge! This is what we are actually dealing with. Instead of questioning anything you are told, instead of investigating, looking with a critically eye to learn truth, many have decided to just go along with the crowd. To assume that this crowd has all the answers, that there all right in anything they state!

    1. You cannot be more correct, good work.
      The collection of videos at the link below will enable you to figure with a high degree of confidence, who perpetrated 911

      Be sure to see:
      "fake as seen on tv"

  39.,_2001 Seems to be more monumental coincidences that also landed at the exact right place, exact right time, in the exact type of way that makes it even more of a coincidence. This would explain lack of response during and even after attacks, not to mention the immediate disaster and rescue response needed to minimize potential outsider help... and hasten the cleanup that had it taken longer, would have increased potential for more eyeballs and investigation. It's just fascinating theory... coincidences and stuff...