Although Mr Baker appears to share similar beliefs to myself as regards both economic and political theory [ broadly:
"anarcho/ Austrian/libertarian"] , and we both seem to share the belief that the government is nothing more than a 100% criminal scam, [ whereas, as far as I can see, 99+ % of 9/11 and "conspiracy" researchers in general appear to be rabid, "foaming at the mouth", apologists for the state], and besides the fact that he is one of only two other persons involved in 9/11 research that appear to be on anything like the same page as myself with regard to both economic and political philosophy concerns, unfortunately, my comments and conclusions addressing Mr Baker's 9/11 research to date are almost entirely negative here.
My apologies to Mr Baker, but still, in the interests of honesty, my negativity towards his research was, in the end, unavoidable, as far as I can see.
Baker's Current 9/11 Beliefs = Plane Images Were Inserted Into Otherwise Live 9/11 Broadcast "Feeds"
From that Fox5 analysis and others similar, Mr Baker concluded that all of the imagery showing a plane flying into WTC2 was in fact deliberately altered - however, he believed, [and still does to this day, that an image of a plane silhouette was "merely" inserted into what was otherwise genuine live MSM broadcast imagery on 9/11.
Video "Expert" Baker Believes The 9/11 Televised Destructions of WTC1, 2 and 7 Were Genuine Live Broadcasts.
Despite Mr Baker's "plane image inserts into live feeds" theory, which I would think would naturally lead an investigator to at least very seriously question the veracity of any/all of the rest of the
alleged live TV 9/11 broadcast imagery- he [surprisingly, to me, anyway], apparently unquestioningly trusts the genuineness of the rest of the alleged live 9/11 broadcast imagery, [as revealed by his quote], and therefor believes that the videos and photos of 9/11 that depict the WTC buildings [e.g.WTC1, 2 and 7] collapsing or exploding [or whatever you wish to call it] , including the "steel to dust" sequence under discussion [see Fig1 above] are all genuine, and that they therefor depict some type of nuclear demolition process, although I'm not exactly sure whether he supports the mini-nuke hypothesis, or something else ["maxi-nukes" perchance? :-)].
Although Mr Bakers 9/11 conclusions at first made some sense to me way back when [2007], they no longer do so, for many reasons, for whatever _that's_ worth.
Thank You, Mr Baker
Even so, I still have to thank Mr Baker for his initial contribution to 9/11 research , if only for at least initially prompting me to take a much closer look at all of
the allegedly "live" MSM broadcasts as now archived on line , as well as other alleged 9/11 imagery.[ e.g. Fig. 1 and related, above]
Mr Baker's "Expert" Video Analysis Abilities:
He Appears To Be a Very Poor "Expert" Videographer
However, based on his conclusions to date, plus his more recent quote, it seems to me that there are serious questions to be asked as to his supposed ability to closely analyze _any_ of the alleged 9/11 imagery, including the so-called "steel to dust" sequence mentioned/linked to above that had prompted our recent [Dec.2014.] , brief email "discussion".
Again, for the record, Mr Baker claims:
"Animating the demolition videos to the level of realism depicted is impossible, even with 2014 technology. " Alexander"Ace" Baker Dec. 2014
First of all, when reviewing/analyzing the claimed "genuine""steel to dust" sequence, I think that it is worth bearing in mind a couple of facts:
Provenance Fact [1] : The"Steel To Dust" Sequence is NOT Original "Live" MSM 9/11 Footage!
It is worth remembering [at least for a serious researcher, methinks ], that the "steel to dust" sequence is NOT original , broadcast as live, MSM 9/11 footage as archived on line.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the original, as archived MSM "live" footage record.
It is, in fact of an entirely different provenance , never broadcast as live footage that day [9/11] .
N.I.S.T. [National Institute of Science & Technology] Origins?
The "steel to dust" sequence under discussion, just like the vast majority of ALL 9/11 imagery, was released some time later. [ I'm assuming , for now, without back-checking, that it was a part of the mysterious, enormous, 9 years later, 2010 N.I.S.T. imagery "dump" onto the internet, although it may possibly originate from an earlier "dump" in 2007].
Which means that the provenance of the "steel to dust" sequence is unknown, or at the very least, highly dubious. [Please see 6 provenance questions listed below].
Provenance Fact [2]: Original, Complete,"Live" MSM Broadcast Tower Collapse Sequences Within The Official On-Line Archives Are Extremely Scarce
Original "live" footage of the two tower "collapses" that was broadcast "live" as they happened, is scarce.
Most 9/11 researchers [including Mr Baker, apparently] appear to be entirely unaware of this very important fact, and appear to spend their time analyzing video and photographs that are not a part of the
official on-line archived video record, and never have been.
On checking the on-line archives for the original MSM coverage at the alleged collapse times [ 9:58 am EST for WTC2, and 10:28 am for WTC1], unless I missed one [ possible, I'm not infallible] it appears that only two complete top to bottom "live" collapse sequences by the "big 5" national stations [CBS,CNN, ABC, Fox, NBC], were first broadcast "live" at those exact same times [ie. 9:58 am EST and 10:28 am EST].
That is : NBC showed the entire WTC2 collapse at 9:58 am, and CNN showed the entire WTC1 collapse at 10.28 am.
The rest of the supposed live MSM broadcasts for that day showing WTC1 and 2 tower collapses appear to be "earlier today" type, non-live re-caps, _not_ live "as it happened" broadcasts.
Click
here to see the only two original allegedly live, complete, MSM top to bottom tower collapse broadcasts [WTC2 @ 9.58 am and WTC1@ 10.28 am], that I have been able to find in the archived footage for all 5 US MSM networks for 9/11 to date .
6 Important "Steel To Dust" Sequence Provenance Questions Mr Baker and Many "Serious 9/11 Researchers" Don't Ask:
1] Exactly who shot the "steel to dust" sequence under discussion?
2], Exactly where were they situated?
3] Exactly what camera equipment was used?
4] Has a complete in-depth, private investigator-type background investigation of the alleged photographer ever been undertaken, including financial and bank records etc.?
5] Has a thorough technical analysis [frame by frame if a video], been performed , looking for specific "giveaways" for faked imagery [Assuming the investigator knows what to look for]?
6]Most importantly,without an honest attempt to get answers to all of the above 5 questions, why would any serious 9/11 researcher just go right ahead and assume that the "steel to dust" sequence [let alone any other alleged 9/11 video or photo sequence] was in any way genuine? [Beats me.]
Provenance Fact [3 ]: All Archived MSM Footage Has a Clear Provenence:
While the provenance of fully 99.9% of the alleged 9/11 imagery is dubious, uncertain, and appeared in all its glory _after_ 9/11, the provenance of all of the archived, on line, original "live" "as it happened" network footage [what little there is], is very clear.
So What's The Big Deal About Provenance?
Why do I believe that provenance issues are important when analyzing 9/11 imagery? My point is [ I hope], easy to understand.
To whit: if it could be shown that all of the original MSM "live" broadcast, on-line archived footage, including the sequences showing both plane crashes and tower collapses, is not genuine live video but only crude, computer generated CGI imagery, then why would any honest, serious 9/11 investigator, in light of that new fact, simply go right ahead and then assume that a later released [ie never shown live on TV as it happened] photo or video depicting the exact same event , but supposedly showing it "in more detail" [eg the "steel to dust" sequence that started this whole e-mail group discussion], was original and genuine, without performing all of the first 5 provenance tests briefly described above?
Again, it beats me :-) .
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that 99% of claimed 9/11 researchers , including Mr Baker, it appears, are quite happy to avoid dealing with issues of imagery provenance, or prefer to deal with it superficially - that is, assuming they even know, or care, what it is.
O.K., Forget Provenance Issues - Moving On:
Anyhoo, 'nuff said, and moving right along to my main points.......
Ace Baker Versus Hollywood, Circa 1996 & '8
Contrary to Mr Baker's "video expert" assertion, it was in fact possible to create "the level of realism depicted" in the original , on-line archived 9/11 tower destruction imagery almost 18 years ago, and therefor, it is _not_ still impossible to do so in 2014, as he asserts, as can be seen from short on line scenes taken from two 1990's Hollywood "blockbusters":
Ace Baker Versus 1996's "Independence Day":
In 1996, the Hollywood movie "Independence Day" was released, replete with 100% CGI produced building explosion/collapse scenes such as this one :
Here is the overall "level of realism depicted" in a still frame from "Independence Day":
Fig.3: X-Ray vision, anyone? See through buildings?Is that a see-through spire seen above in this detail from a 9/11 live MSM broadcast? Or are you going to dismiss it as a sunlight reflection?
