sorry but the nose out still looks like nose out even with attempts to pick holes in social's analysis.
well its been proven umpteen dozen times its not a nose out, but its your judgement and opinon i suppose, at least somebody who believes these theories as at last commented on the original issue of the thread though after 25/30 replies.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:58 am Post subject: Pick holes!
Pick Holes!
jfk wrote:
sorry but the nose out still looks like nose out even with attempts to pick holes in social's analysis.
What's wrong with you? I didn't pick holes in his "argument" I drove a ten-ton truck through his lie.
He doesn't have an argument, and he never will.
He's put up two more 9/11 pop videos, which are in extremely poor taste, using, as they do, the literal grave of thousands of innocent people to play his video games on. He is, figuratively, dancing on the graves of the victims of the attack, and you have posted links to those revolting insults.
Where do you get off supporting someone who tells lies, allegedly, on behalf of the 9/11 truth movement; a movement which some of us devote a lot of time to?
This is not a matter of opinion as to whether or not something looks like the nose of a plane: that charlatan, posing as a 9/11 activist, set out to deliberately deceive. That is the point.
Do you understand? He knowingly told a video lie: an insult to the people who died on that terrible day. Only the truth will get us anywhere near the perpetrators, and people like Simon Shack do more damage than just about anyone else, because he makes the rest of us look stupid, just because they think that we are in agreement with people who behave as he does. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
He's put up two more 9/11 pop videos, which are in extremely poor taste, using, as they do, the literal grave of thousands of innocent people to play his video games on. He is, figuratively, dancing on the graves of the victims of the attack, and you have posted links to those revolting insults.
hang on a minute!
would you say the same thing about loose change 1, which states that a missile was fired from the plane prior to impact?
we don't know if this is true, if it is'nt, would you say it was a 'revolting insult' to make this observation?
He's put up two more 9/11 pop videos, which are in extremely poor taste, using, as they do, the literal grave of thousands of innocent people to play his video games on. He is, figuratively, dancing on the graves of the victims of the attack, and you have posted links to those revolting insults.
hang on a minute!
would you say the same thing about loose change 1, which states that a missile was fired from the plane prior to impact?
we don't know if this is true, if it is'nt, would you say it was a 'revolting insult' to make this observation?
if they continued to promote it when it had been proven 100% to be wrong then absolutly.
however you will find when something has been disproven or has no evidence most people either move away from it or stop promoting it, unlike npt/tv fakery believers who just don't want to be wrong so they will promote anything that helps them cling to their belief, even if its something that has been proven to be a outright lie.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:33 pm Post subject: Answer the question: Why do you support a proven liar?
Answer the question: Why do you support a proven liar?
jfk wrote:
Quote:
He's put up two more 9/11 pop videos, which are in extremely poor taste, using, as they do, the literal grave of thousands of innocent people to play his video games on. He is, figuratively, dancing on the graves of the victims of the attack, and you have posted links to those revolting insults.
hang on a minute!
would you say the same thing about loose change 1, which states that a missile was fired from the plane prior to impact?
we don't know if this is true, if it is'nt, would you say it was a 'revolting insult' to make this observation?
Answer the question, and stop moving the goalposts. Simon Shack is the person under discussion, not "Loose Change". Frankly, I'm not a fan of those videos, either, but that is beside the point. Shack is putting up music videos using the 9/11 disaster as an excuse.
You now know he lied. Why do you support a liar? _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Theres a (CGI)Plane or a misslie or something going through and out the other side of the tower with force, and we know that a Plane can not go through the steel beams in the building and poke out through the other side, so what is the nose out then?
It's not dust.
It's good to keep an open mind, and nice to see people paying fair here with all the insluts and everything.
Goodbye you MUPPETS good luck with your Griffin style 9/11 fake World Order hope you enjoy your "Tuthseeking"
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:07 pm Post subject:
jfk wrote:
Quote:
if they continued to promote it when it had been proven 100% to be wrong then absolutly.
has it been proven 100% to be wrong?
has the dust theory been proven?
Put it this way, the CGI theory has been conclusively disproven because it's not a matched image at all.
The solid structure is disproven because there's no exit hole large enough.
All that's left is a 2 storey high gush of fuel and debris funneled through the other side at high speed which exits from the corner and then ignites shortly after leaving the building.
It's called 'dust', but I prefer fuel-soaked inflammable sludge because that seems the most likely probability left. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
think about it, why else do you think theres no exit hole?
what do you expect to happen with fast moving debris and a explosion taking place inside a building?
you can clearly see the same stuff coming out the sides of the building, as it works its way down the side and out pops the rest at the end of the tower.
Quote:
has it been proven 100% to be wrong?
the nose out has, yes. and the missle or whatever has been dropped, just like the nose out should be.
people only see what they were told it was rather than seeing it for what it is, which is a mixture of debris fuel and dust maybe smoke also, followed by the explosion from within the towers. causing a squib to come out of one end and also all down one side of the towers.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:50 am Post subject: Final time
Final time
jfk wrote:
Quote:
Answer the question: Why do you support a proven liar?
the issue is the nose out footage.
you are attacking social's analysis presentation concerning this footage.
the issue has not been proven either way, however much you think you have .
Quote:
Simon Shack is the person under discussion, not "Loose Change". Frankly, I'm not a fan of those videos, either, but that is beside the point.
i am a fan of loose change, it has enlightened huge amounts of people to the questions of 9/11
Yes, I am attacking Simon Shack (his name isn't social) for deliberately fading out an image which is being compared with another image, so that there is nothing being compared, and calling the result a "MICRO-PRECISION MATCH".
Having spent the best part of my working life dealing with photographically produced images of one kind or another, I know that it would have been impossible for Mr Shack not to have seen the differences in what he later passed off as two images matching one-another, and not even you can deny what the compound adjective "micro-precision" means.
It follows that Shack deliberately set out to deceive, and then told his video lie, deliberately; on purpose. If you still insist on believing in or trusting someone who could do something like that, regarding such a serious issue, then you will, undoubtedly, run into many problems, during your lifetime. Try that sort of trust with a builder, for example.
Regarding Loose Change, which is still beside the point--demonstrating that you have the dreaded goal-post-moving disease that many of the posters on all the sites I look at seem to be afflicted with--saying that I am "not a fan" of Loose Change does not mean that those videos have not contributed to people's awareness of the 9/11 issues. I just don't like the style. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:17 am Post subject: What you see is What Shack Used
What You See is What Shack Used
catfish wrote:
I need to see high quality footage of this shot before I can make my mind up either way.
Neither 100% for
nor 100% against.
Divide and conquer,
David
I've got a better quality video, but that is beside the point. It wouldn't matter what Shack was using, the pictures he's isolated come from the same video. He fades out the "nose-in" so there is nothing being compared. I've compared what he compared, and shown you how he smoothed and applied anti-aliasing to the shots he desperately needs to convice people that they are a "Micro-Precision Match."
What more do you need?
It wouldn't matter whether the two images came directly from a Sony Hi-Definition, DigitalSuperDuperCam, or a thrice copied VHS.
It's still a video LIE! _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:46 am Post subject: Fox 5 video
Fox 5 video - With Plane in Wide Shot
catfish wrote:
I'd like for you to make available that better quality video.
Thanks.
Although not if it's the .mov Salter released. I already got that one.
Peace
David
Hello David,
If you've got an account or a place I can upload it to, give me the details; I don't want to bother the guy who went to a lot of trouble to get it to me.
If you don't want to do that, check out “September Clues – Busted!” Google video 28 minutes:
This version is pretty good quality and the video can be downloaded and saved. The plane can also be seen in the wide shot, before the zoom in. I found it by calculating where it should be, using the aircraft speed worked out by the Royal Aircraft Establishment: 575 mph. Then I did my own reverse calculations, as you will see. Of course my detractors have hinted that I added the three frames, or that it was a "video" glitch.
I didn't add anything, and what would be the chances of a three-frame glitch at almost exactly the spot where the aircraft should be?
But I would still like to know why you seem to doubt that Shack was lying, when using the material he had available. The images are not overlaid, as he claims they are, and they are not a match.
Anthony _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Maybe I could do all kinds of things, but I'm not about to be messed around by someone who refuses to answer a simple question. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
You said you would upload the video if there was somewhere to put it. I suggested youtube. Now you won't do it.
Your version shows a 'plane in the zoom out. The version I have access to doesn't.
i simply do not understand why the obvious is so hard to see/accept or understand. all i do know is those playing dumb or purposily giving ground to lies become complicit in telling the lie and promoting the lie.
an ego dent is worth it IMO, i'd rather be wrong and admit it than become what i was supoose to be against in the first place, lies. which i had to do myself because the evidence was so overwelming, yes there was a period where even i thought there was something in NPT/TV fakery untill i started to look it at for myself rather than relying on secondhand information.
how can a god dam nose out look like a nose out when it is dust/explosion/squib? simple, because people have convinced themselves it was a nose out and now cannot admit what it really is due to ego bruising. understand that you then become complicit in that lie the same way the media become complicit in the 9/11 cover-up.
Surely though. If there is doubt at all, it is instilled by the fact that the video is such poor quality.
If a better quality film is available surely that would be the best way to put this to bed.
so the only responses from tv/fakery/npt believers has been excuses as to why they should cling to the belief whilst avoiding the issue of the thread topic, and one throwing a tantrum and who has not made one comment regarding the thread topic, the rest thus far have avoided the thread all together.
are there any npt/tv fakery believers who are actually honest or truthful or got the balls to admit when something they believe has been disproved, rather than using diversion tactics to avoid the whole issue?
npt/tv fakery theory just in this one thread alone, has proven how much credibility they have(none) and how much truthful information they have(none) to disprove the information that has kindly been put forward to show you all the truth.
the only thing i see on display from tv fakery/npt believers so far(all two of em) is denial from one and with stephen bare faced avoidence and an attitude of...... "i don't care if its been proved wrong, i am going to keep on promoting it and other lies, to convince and mislead people inorder to convince them 9/11 was an inside job by spaming the other sections."
stephen your credibility as a truth teller is now shot, and i reckon most will consider you a liar and a deciever due to your failure to be honest or even comment on the information, i certainly have you down as a liar and someone to ignore due to your response to this information, its so easy to see how you were misled but obviously you knew all along and don't care and are someone who is helping to decieve people by playing dumb to the information or avoiding it 100%.
truth always wins get use to it, tantrums convince nobody, if anything they enforce how wrong you are. otherwise you would'nt need to throw a tantrum, whats that saying again?
the truth hurts?
Marky 54, were do you get off being so rude to people? I'm not intrested in your nonsense!
so the only responses from tv/fakery/npt believers has been excuses as to why they should cling to the belief whilst avoiding the issue of the thread topic, and one throwing a tantrum and who has not made one comment regarding the thread topic, the rest thus far have avoided the thread all together.
are there any npt/tv fakery believers who are actually honest or truthful or got the balls to admit when something they believe has been disproved, rather than using diversion tactics to avoid the whole issue?
npt/tv fakery theory just in this one thread alone, has proven how much credibility they have(none) and how much truthful information they have(none) to disprove the information that has kindly been put forward to show you all the truth.
the only thing i see on display from tv fakery/npt believers so far(all two of em) is denial from one and with stephen bare faced avoidence and an attitude of...... "i don't care if its been proved wrong, i am going to keep on promoting it and other lies, to convince and mislead people inorder to convince them 9/11 was an inside job by spaming the other sections."
stephen your credibility as a truth teller is now shot, and i reckon most will consider you a liar and a deciever due to your failure to be honest or even comment on the information, i certainly have you down as a liar and someone to ignore due to your response to this information, its so easy to see how you were misled but obviously you knew all along and don't care and are someone who is helping to decieve people by playing dumb to the information or avoiding it 100%.
truth always wins get use to it, tantrums convince nobody, if anything they enforce how wrong you are. otherwise you would'nt need to throw a tantrum, whats that saying again?
the truth hurts?
Marky 54, were do you get off being so rude to people? I'm not intrested in your nonsense!
whats so rude about stating what i think of you then explaining why i came to that conclusion?
the deception is so easy to see it has now got to the point of those still claiming it's true have some sort of agenda rather than misjudging evidence.
so why not address anthony lawsons evidence rather than throwing tantrums about it and then throwing tantrums about what i think about you as a result?
you could always prove me wrong but i doubt i'll ever see you address evidence that goes against your claims, hence why i think what i think.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:02 am Post subject: Impertinence
Impertinence
catfish wrote:
Not being honest?
You said you would upload the video if there was somewhere to put it. I suggested youtube. Now you won't do it.
Your version shows a 'plane in the zoom out. The version I have access to doesn't.
I guess I am on my own
Thanks very much
Peace
David
You are a very impertinent person. I have given you my reasons, and told you that if you have somewhere to upload it to, I will do that for you.
I have no idea what U-Tube's process might do to the video, which is why I will not trust sending it to that venue. The fact that the plane is visible in “September Clues” and “September Clues – Busted!” doesn’t seem to matter to you. The video file is 5,055Kb, if you want to spend some time or money finding out how I can send it to you, then do so, otherwise keep you rude accusations to yourself.
It’s like someone offering you a beer, while they are standing at the bar, but you want them to deliver it to your table, as well. Where are your manners? _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
'- the nose-out shot, let me say this once and for all and feel free to cut and paste this paragraph whenever you run into this question : the HEIGHT of the nose shapes (nose-in=plane still intact/nose-out=plane crashed through WTC2) are EXACT MATCHES (same number of pixels). The CONTOUR of the nose shapes are very close matches but this is not seen on web quality video because of the differing contrast of the two pixel blocks. I will do my best to illustrate this better in a refined SC edition'
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
