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.
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
This site is one-stop shopping for rationalists who have to deal with the no-planes plague.
ReplyDeleteRon Wieck
I've put up several of these links. It doesn't matter. They reject everything as quickly as I reject Alex Jones
ReplyDeleteNo 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?
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
DeleteDon't bother arguing here Frank. This is a den of sycophants gobbling up their beloved blue-pill goo from a licensed curator of lies.
DeleteCompare 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeletequote "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"?
ReplyDeletefirst 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.
First, why was the chopper already focused on the floors the plane was going to impact. Second, how did the cameraman know the exact moment of impact to zoom in at the exact same time? Not to overzoom, or underzoom. Not to lose the framing and have to frantically move the camera to get the picture back into frame as happens in just about all other spontaneously shot footage that took cameramen completely by surprise? This is filmed as if someone told the cameraman, "be here at this spot focused on this floor at precisely this time." In fact, every video is shot in this manner. Is there one you can show where someone is actually surprised? One of the video's shows the person focused on a clock. right as the minute changes, he immediately pans up to catch the fireball. What, the loud screeching plane isn't enough to take this guy's focus off that lovely digital clock?
DeleteTo 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
ReplyDeleteThere'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.
DeleteNo 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...
ReplyDeleteWait, are you actually implying that the towers themselves were holograms? That's even funnier than the no plane theory...
DeleteTyler, tangling one conspiracy in with another does the first no justice. It's part of the handbook for 'Black Propaganda'. The towers were mostly hollow so the people could walk around, do business and such.
DeleteYou didn't really expect there to be a pile of rubble the same size as the complete towers? You can't be that slow.
No planes is not 'aside'. There were none.
YES!ABSOLUTELY!!... 100 floors of Steel & Concrete
DeleteDUSTIFIED in just ONE HOUR !?!....Seriously?...and
HOW can Aluminum Passenger Planes Fly at 500 MPH @
200 Ft, w/o the WINGS COMING OFF?...not to mention
the STEEL BEAMS are BLOWN OUT & not IN !!!
OFF
the building was all over the streets. dust 3 inches thick. there was a big pile but a lot of it was melted into the basement. the rubble was burning for 2 weeks+ after the event.
DeleteThis site has some WRONG conclusions. Ace Baker did better job..
ReplyDeleteThis site is a deliberate misinformation campaign trying to rewrite the narrative with all new 'live' footage (conveniently located at official sources on youtube) that differs from the original footage aired, where a 'plane' cannot be made out. There is a different, much smaller object on the same collision course as later high quality cgi video samples but it is certainly not a plane. These 'live' broadcasts have been tampered with.
DeleteThis individual certainly knows this having 'researched' this topic so deeply and thus is likely in the employ of some very powerful people.
I agree, entirely. Here's why - neither commentator, on the 2 videos that show a plane flying into a building (hey didn't the site's author say there were FOUR additional shots, besides Baker's 3? I saw the 2 w the planes that could have been added later, I saw CBS but there's no moment-of-impact... then where's the other 2 live shots that allegedly exist? Were they so boring as to not be worthy of posting a repeating GIF of each?) Anyway, on the 2 shots in question, where we seem to see a plane impact a building, neither commentator even MENTIONS seeing a plane approaching. They both only react to the explosion. So, I say, the commentary is live / real, the picture has been tampered with. There was no plane to be seen, live, by those commentators, thus no mention of a plane by said commentators. Thank you for helping to BOLSTER Ace's theory.
DeleteAll of the video's released on 9-12 had no background scenery.Such as the blue sky, river, buildings across the river.The "new video's of planes" were all a grey background with zero scenery
ReplyDeletethat was in the live video on 9-11.Try and explane how everything changed,sky, no river, zero background that was all visible in live camera shots.Sorry thus doesn't add up.TOTAL CGI.GET REAL.
They didn't. You just think they did because your doped up ex-rock hero Ace Baker told you there wasn't a river or sky or anything like that.
DeleteTotal CGI fabrication.Live camera footage showed river, background scenery, New Jersey, Sky, clouds,The CGI version was with no sky, no background scenery, no New Jersey.It was a rush to get the CGI version ready for the news propaganda to show planes doing the impossible.Poorly fabricated!
ReplyDeleteAnd for your information aluminum Airplanes can't penetrate CONCRETE& STEEL.Impossible, couldn't happen,
defies all logic known to man.
Because the mock footage wasn't of a stock 757... Take your damage control down the road and kick rocks deep state
ReplyDeleteThere WAS NO "mock footage."
DeleteA US pilot said publicly that no pilot in the US can fly that plane into the Pentagon like that. An Arab with 2 hours training on a flight simulator cannot do it either.
ReplyDeleteWhich "US pilot" is that, and are you sure that's what he or she said?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe planes of 9/11 were crude computer graphics seen only on TV. There were no still photos. The planes were computer graphic images https://rumble.com/vik5ep-crystal-clear-side-by-side.html
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't "debunk" anything! It is obvious that at least one of the "planes" was fake, CGI because you can see how the wing temporarily goes BEHIND a building that is farther off in the distance. Planes do not fly at that speed that close to the ground & if a real plane was flown into a steel framed skyscraper its nose cone would smash FLAT & the whole aircraft would fall straight DOWN. It would not become a bugs bunny cartoon & pass through to the other side. Use some common sense!
ReplyDelete