A Physicist's Take on the Plane Crash

Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3

A Physicist's Take on the Plane Crash
Topic Started: Oct 6 2009, 04:56 PM (796 Views)
achimspok	Nov 2 2009, 11:42 PM Post #31
Posts: 297 Group: Members Member #266 Joined: Aug 2, 2009	That's somehow typical: Ace in wiki style. * Very brief (<1.5 seconds) appearance and disappearance of plane ...but somehow they were prepared to show the right perspective and speed and elevation for two different shots. Wouldn't it be easier to chose some tripod camera on top of a building? It would. * High contrast between sky and tower edge ...but low/no contrast between sky and smoke (about impossible to key) so where are the edges of the keyable area? * Plane path is across sky only ...but across a critical color transition at the horizon. It would be easier to put a paper plane into a city background like the NBC chopper because it would hide all pixel failures while such a "clean" sky would show the slightest failure immediately. * Plane disappears across straight vertical edge ...yes but that's the easiest part * All surfaces requiring airplane shadows are hidden ...there is none. not one. the south face was still in the shadow. * Actual impact wall is hidden ...yes * Camera is gyroscopically stabilized ...stabilized as usual but not stable. Wouldn't it be easier to chose some tripod camera on top of a building? It would. * Helicopter is as motionless as possible, drifting very slowly to the left ...I think it flies at normal speed but was also far away. * No panning, tilting, zooming or focusing while airplane is on screen ...but chopper5 zooms in just a second prior to the plane. How fast can Ace - the live composite operator - adjust the position in relation to the tower, the size, the elevation, the speed... Ace And what are the chances Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 both had all the compositional characteristics needed for live compositing? Tina Cart1 fulfill all the characteristics better, Devin Clark also, CNN also, Myers also... The chances are very high because: tripod + north of the south face + elevation below 300 meters and you get almost always all your "characteristics". Edited by achimspok, Nov 2 2009, 11:59 PM.



RasgaSaias	Nov 3 2009, 03:10 PM Post #32
Posts: 1,360 Group: Global Moderator Member #43 Joined: Oct 16, 2008	achimspok Nov 2 2009, 11:42 PM * Helicopter is as motionless as possible, drifting very slowly to the left ...I think it flies at normal speed but was also far away. Yes, the alleged presence of such "compositional feature" is a complete fabrication. Chopper 5 was moving forward. There's no way Ace couldn't have noticed it. The shot itself proves the lack of interest Ace has for what actually happened. He's more interested in the fictional story around the alternative reality he created. That's why he constantly twists the evidence to fit his theory.



acebaker	Nov 3 2009, 03:28 PM Post #33
Posts: 175 Group: Members Member #248 Joined: Jul 1, 2009	If the odds are "very high" then you should have no trouble finding other news footage that matches these characteristics. Find a car chase where the helicopter zooms in and holds motionless on a building, waiting for the car to crash. Find footage where there is plenty of camera motion before and after an important moving news subject is on screen, but holds still exactly during the short time it is on screen. Find footage where an important news subject disappears across a straight vertical edge, and there is high contrast between that edge and the background. There must be hundreds of thousands of hours of news helicopter footage. If the odds are "very high", then there should exists thousands of such examples.



RasgaSaias	Nov 3 2009, 04:01 PM Post #34
Posts: 1,360 Group: Global Moderator Member #43 Joined: Oct 16, 2008	acebaker Nov 3 2009, 03:28 PM Find a car chase where the helicopter zooms in and holds motionless on a building, waiting for the car to crash. LOL This is so retarded. They were motionless on the WTC because IT WAS ON FIRE and they were shooting live footage FROM IT! They were not waiting for the plane to crash on a random building! LMAO! acebaker Find footage where there is plenty of camera motion before and after an important moving news subject is on screen, but holds still exactly during the short time it is on screen. Find footage where an important news subject disappears across a straight vertical edge, and there is high contrast between that edge and the background. LOL Find the live chopper 4 footage where nothing of that happens! Yet you excluded it from your theory. LOL Oh wait, I know why! It's because you somehow decided to pretend chopper 4 was not aired live. According to you "there's no way to know what was aired live on 9/11". However, and because it fits your theory, you say you know for sure chopper 5 was aired live. LMAO! Ace Baker on Wikipedia article: http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Nine_Extraordinary_Compositional_Features Only 2 different airplane videos are confirmed to have been shown live –news helicopter shots known as “Chopper 5” and “Chopper 7”. How were they confirmed and not chopper 4? Was it a personal opinion based confirmation? LOL You're a joker. Go sell your story to Hollywood. Edited by RasgaSaias, Nov 3 2009, 05:45 PM.



achimspok	Nov 4 2009, 02:56 AM Post #35
Posts: 297 Group: Members Member #266 Joined: Aug 2, 2009	Ace, I hope you feel comfortable to distract the discussion from the subject once again. How many car crashes do you know with the following features: - cars flying in the blue sky - next to a burning sky scraper - 50 cameras pointing at the sky scraper because it is a news story already So the challenger explosion is close to the media event you are looking for. Do you think it was a media hoax because of the blue sky? Or do you believe it was real because of the missing sky scraper? This is not stable: No chance without tracking point animation and... ...no chance to set up proper tracking points. Btw, notice the smooth transition of the smoke right above the plane. It's a bad situation for chroma key. But if you key just the background of an artificial plane layer then the sky argument is nonsense anyway. So how did they set up the tracking points for this shot? By some hi end picture analysis software that automatically recognized and locked to the skyline, linked to the pre-fabricated animation, scaled the animation and mixed the picture? That would automatically exclude the whole bunch of nose out nonsense! Same features as above: This is not stable. Tracking point animation required. No chance to set the tracking points in real time by hand. Points for automatic recognition obscured by smoke (at least in danger to get lost in the very moment). Notice the smooth color transition of the sky. So the whole plan is absurd. A shot like the Scott Myers video would be a 1000 times better to do a "real time composite".



RasgaSaias	Nov 4 2009, 01:41 PM Post #36
Posts: 1,360 Group: Global Moderator Member #43 Joined: Oct 16, 2008	This is how he explains his theory about the way they faked it live and how they screw up with the nose-out: Now for the funny part, his own video debunks itself: Ace Baker knows about this. He knew it even before I mentioned it to him. Ace Baker - before I mentioned the problem There is an aspect of the Chopper 5 nose out that I have not discussed, because I still hope that somewhere somebody recorded it from TV. I think that what was on TV was different than the copies we have, but I can't know unless somebody comes up with a tape. Ace Baker - after I mentioned the problem You're right about the flame being light enough to go transparent in the key. That's what I was talking about. They added that later. And blurred the nose over time. Probably Eric Salter did it. But instead of telling everyone the truth about his flawed analysis like any honest person would, he pretends it's not important and keeps pushing it. Ace Baker - more far-fetched excuses They made sure they had all the home tapes, then they got busy fixing the footage that needed to be fixed. Where are the home tapes? Find me one. Ace prefers to fantasize about these unreasonable far-fetched explanations instead of facing the possibility that he's wrong. And when I shown him the "nose-out" in the chopper 7 shot, he immediately accused me of being an "agent". This has been his typical behavior for many months now. Delusion, denial and ad hominem. Edited by RasgaSaias, Nov 4 2009, 03:31 PM.



achimspok	Nov 4 2009, 04:17 PM Post #37
Posts: 297 Group: Members Member #266 Joined: Aug 2, 2009	And both examples tracking the camera movement. That's what I wrote, Ace. If you have a plane in the picture and if you have all the time in the world then you can do it. You can check the perspective, you can check the speed, and you can track the motion of the picture. It's about impossible to do in real time especially immediately after a fast zoom in and without a plane already in the picture. Btw, the 3 layers idea is brilliant to prevent failures from the background transitions. But it seems to be difficult to adjust the brightness color and contrast even if you have all the time you need. Did you check if the "motion blur" is may be just the result of an interlaced source + frame rate conversion + subsequent compression? It looks a little bit like that. Has anyone an original NTSC source to split the frames into fields? Edited by achimspok, Nov 4 2009, 04:44 PM.



achimspok	Nov 7 2009, 02:36 PM Post #38
Posts: 297 Group: Members Member #266 Joined: Aug 2, 2009	Ace Baker in "A Deconstruction of Eric Salter's Chopper 5 Rebuttal" His (Salter's) entire critique is premised around a demonstrably false claim. Namely, Salter claims that the camera motion of the Chopper 5 shot is perfectly stable, and so would have a perfectly consistent effect on the apparent motion of the airplane. I invite everyone to please download the Chopper 5 video and step through it frame by frame, paying attention to the apparent motion of the twin towers, to see whether this apparent motion is perfectly consistent from frame to frame, or not. I am confident that everyone in the world except Eric Salter will agree that the motion is quite unsteady and inconsistent. http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/SalterDeconstruction.html Ace Baker in "Nine Extraordinary Compositional Features" I begin by comparing the two live shots. Only 2 different airplane videos are confirmed to have been shown live –news helicopter shots known as “Chopper 5” and “Chopper 7”. ... They feature a remarkable list of shared compositional characteristics: ... # Camera is gyroscopically stabilized # Helicopter is as motionless as possible, drifting very slowly to the left # No panning, tilting, zooming or focusing while airplane is on screen http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Nine_Extraordinary_Compositional_Features Ace? You knew that you did a tracking point animation? I guess your "Thank you" wasn't honest. But ... no need for pseudocide.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · 9/11 Research · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3