9/11 - The Great Nose In Nose Out Hoax

[John White]

[Anthony Lawson]

Stupid Comment

[telecasterisation]

[jfk]

[chek]

What does have a bearing is that the anonymous Simon 'I'm just having a larf' Shack has succeeded in planting the illusion in you and those with a similar low threshold the idea that his 'theories' have some substance - without actually following through and providing any. With conmen, the power of suggestion is enough.

[catfish]

This is from Salters .mov nothing is changed by me.

In my opinion the nose/dustcloud coming out is very very much the same shape and height as the 'plane going in. Not trying to piss anyone off but that's my opinion.


Peace

David

[telecasterisation]

Perhaps it is me but I am unable to sort out what the 'IN' sequence shows - there is no logical order.

[catfish]

That's the order they appear in time.....

First from the right of the screen, then disappears behind the logo, then appears from behind the logo. Seems like a logical order to me!

Dave

[telecasterisation]

Perhaps I phrased my question poorly:

What I meant was there is no logic to show a sequence - you only want one pre-entry and one post-exit image to compare UNLESS we are saying because of the poor quality and considerable magnification - the outline changes shape. If we accept that the image outline shifts then this comparison concept is void.

Three frames pre-entry showing considerable variation;

[Anthony Lawson]

Remember the Proposition

Note: To make as accurate a comparison of the images as possible, they should not have been smoothed nor anti-aliased. I have made my own set. I do not rely on the work of others. You must go back to the basics.

Simon Shack proposes:

1. What can be seen going into the building is a graphic which is in the shape of a plane.

2. What can be seen coming out of the building is the the same graphic.

3. The matte for superimposing this image, either side of the building, shifted, because the helicopter moved after the graphics artist had set the matte.

4. A supervisor had to fade the composite to black, because of this unforeseen incident.

Why this is not what happened.

Never mind about the shape of the graphic "going in". The shape of the graphic "coming out" changes in each frame, and not because of slight pixel-position variations due to the enlargement process; they change significantly.

The video image of a graphic shape would not have changed significantly, only slightly, due to variations in the pixel positions.

Note: Why the matte was double sided, Shack does not explain. I can achieve the desired effect by using a simple split screen, where there would be absolutely no danger of the graphic being seen on the other side of the building. Shack's proposed method would only be used if you wanted to see the superimposed image appear to come out of the other side of the building.

I have also demonstrated, in "September Clues - Busted!" that the shifting matte would have caused the graphic to appear to enter the building in the side facing the camera, not where it does.

Shack is a musician, the people he accuses of having perpetrated this illusion would have been professionals in the field of video effects work. They would not have used the method Shack proposes.

Shack is also a proven liar, because he deliberately set out to deceive, by fading out the "nose in" in his "Micro-Precision Match" hoax. He knew that the two images didn't match, and he knew what he was doing when he told his video lie.

Now, can we all get some sleep?

[jfk]

the fact is there is a pixel match

social service did not lie

zzzzzzzzz...

[chek]

[jfk]

[jfk]

Speaking of "liars":


Anthony Lawson

[chek]

[jfk]

chek,
please prove that the height of the plane graphic in/out does not show an exact pixel match,
thank you

[Stefan]

[Bongo]

... I didn't take you for a Christian Chek?

[chek]

[jfk]

hi stefan,
'social service' has stated that the height of the graphic/plane is an exact pixel match.

the height is not adressed in Anthony Lawson's film, as well as many other issue's raised in sept. clues.

[Stefan]

[Jack]

september clues is a total embarrassment.

good work, anthony.

[Anthony Lawson]

[jfk]

tony and jack, what is your theory on how the 175 and 77 hit the towers?
was it hijackers or was it by remote control?

[gruts]

more to the point - now that it's been proved beyond doubt that it's not an "exact pixel match", are you finally going to accept that you're wrong and that social service is a liar?

or are you going to continue "spreading lies and denying reality for truth"?

[jfk]

again..

the HEIGHT of the nose shapes (nose-in=plane still intact/nose-out=plane crashed through WTC2) are EXACT MATCHES (same number of pixels).

[jfk]

Even though the nose faces aren't a precision match, what's the odds that the exiting "engine/dust" is they VERY similar shape to the plane's nose-in?

[gruts]

first of all - it's interesting to see how you've moved the goalposts in a desperate attempt to avoid confronting the truth, now that simon shack's claim of an "exact match" has been shown to be a lie.

what comes out of the other side of the tower is clearly not the same as the nosecone of the plane that went in and - in addition - what comes out expands and changes its shape as it emerges.

and believe it or not, the fact that 2 things are roughly the same height does not mean that they are the same....

and the fact that - for a split second only - what comes out is approximately the same height as what went in, is not proof of anything.

this has already been explained to you about a million times, but if you insist on being wilfully blind, I don't suppose there's anything I or anyone else can do to make you see....

[Anthony Lawson]

Same Height

[jfk]