May 29, 2014

The "Nose-Out" Fallacy

It's Not the Nose of the Plane

If the CGI "no-plane 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 in the FOX Chopper footage, then why doesn't the nose hold it's shape? The alleged nose can clearly be seen morphing and expanding as it exits. An animated plane graphic would not do that, especially if it was an editing blunder that was never intended to be seen. 

Below: The exiting "nose" is compared with the plane's nose prior to impact. 


9/11 "nose out" dust cloud

See how it was done: 





If it's not the nose, then what is it? How about looking at it from more than just ONE angle?


















Conclusion

It's impossible that the nose could have survived intact. What's seen exiting the tower is obviously not a CGI animation. It's real. The ejection and it's shadow are consistently visible from numerous angles, including those from live broadcasts. When ALL the video evidence is considered, it is very clear that the alleged "nose out" is nothing but a debris cloud exploding out of the north-east corner of the tower (including engine and landing gear), the same kind of debris cloud seen exploding out of the east face.





_____________________________________________________________________






11 comments:

  1. This site is one-stop shopping for rationalists who have to deal with the no-planes plague.

    Ron Wieck

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've put up several of these links. It doesn't matter. They reject everything as quickly as I reject Alex Jones

    ReplyDelete
  3. No credibility to this site what so ever. I watched only 2 of the above videos the first being the NY1 footage, claiming it has 25 seconds of footage of the plane: I saw no plane period and neither did the reporter. The other claiming the nose of the plane morphed: It did not only was enveloped by the fireball. Who's full of shit here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are, right between the ears, because your brain is denial mode. bash your head against a sledge hammer to shake some loose and reset it.

      Delete
  4. Compare the quality of Mr. Baker's video research (along with AB's demonstrated expertise in video graphics and compositing) in conjunction with his elequent logic, against the poor-quality childish rebuttals presented here; it's a no-brainer, Ace wins in a landslide.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree as well. Ace did a great job with just a common approach of hey, i know how that was done. Ive seen shitty work before with composites.

    ReplyDelete
  6. quote "f the CGI "no-plane 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 in the FOX Chopper footage, then why doesn't the nose hold it's shape"?

    first is of course you make no rebuttal regarding whether the image that is suggested by baker appears, as well as we can make scientific claims of similarity of shape and lightness of the object

    Second the suggestion is that there is a coordination between the video compositing of the plane and the expected behavior of the planted explosives in the building.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To follow up my point the video you are looking at is simply what happened when the explosives went off. The other videos have the suupeimposed image of the nose of the plane. It seems like we are at the first grade level with a discussion like this but so be it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no superimposed image. The debris cloud exiting the tower resembles the shape of the nose cone from certain angles, but from other angles it's obvious what it is. It's as simple as that.

      Delete
  8. No planes aside, where did the towers go after they collapsed?? There simply is not enough rubbel at ground zero. Sorry for blowing your brain apart...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait, are you actually implying that the towers themselves were holograms? That's even funnier than the no plane theory...

      Delete