September Clues Analysis, and debunk Options

[simonshack]

This is the only thing i'm going to comment on here at present:

I am providing that 'conclusive evidence'

Here's some of that "conclusive evidence" of yours:

(IMG:http://bonez.us/pics/plane_exit1.jpg)

(IMG:http://bonez.us/pics/plane_exit2.jpg)


Yep, that's conclusive. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)


'Nuff said. ..

Bone Z,


I think you're truly dedicated to the truth and respect you for it. However,
you've evidently attempted to disprove the Nose in/Nose-out issue without taking the time to read my statements on my livevideo page :

"I initially hesitated to publish this work on the www – if only for the sheer difficulty of displaying , with the available resolution, some of the more subtle details in this study. For instance, the pixel-overlay of the ‘nose-in/nose-out’ helicopter shot (see SC part1) may look unconvincing on web-video but is extremely precise in full-size / PSD format. So, anyone wishing to prove the nose-out is a different ‘object’ than the nose-in, has a formidable task on his hands."

What you are doing is exactly what video researchers (mostly because of LACK of available high-res material) have been accused to do. That is, drawing conclusions from compressed pixels. I will, in time, publish a high-resolution comparison of the nose-in/nose-out which will show you the real thing. The size, shape and outline of the two in-out objects (cockpit?...) are the same - pixel-by-pixel. The differences you see on the files extracted from September Clues is only a contrast problem.

[Cary]

What you are doing is exactly what video researchers (mostly because of LACK of available high-res material) have been accused to do. That is, drawing conclusions from compressed pixels. I will, in time, publish a high-resolution comparison of the nose-in/nose-out which will show you the real thing. The size, shape and outline of the two in-out objects (cockpit?...) are the same - pixel-by-pixel. The differences you see on the files extracted from September Clues is only a contrast problem.

Back up your claim here or be gone. That's a pretty serious claim you're making. I don't trust you based on who you probably are. You don't have that much time for me to "await your reply."

"publish a high-resolution comparison of the nose-in/nose-out which will show you the real thing. The size, shape and outline of the two in-out objects (cockpit?...) are the same - pixel-by-pixel."

Get it up or get it going. Don't pussy foot around with a bunch of half baked bullshit. I ain't that patient.

You savvy?? I damn sure hope so.

What you are doing is exactly what video researchers (mostly because of LACK of available high-res material) have been accused to do. That is, drawing conclusions from compressed pixels.

Actually, it's what you are doing. Because of your use of low-quality, pixelated, compressed internet video to make your claims, your videos fall short. All i'm doing is going by what you have presented.

As far as the nose-in/out, i can guarantee that no matter how high of resolution pictures you show, the end result will be the same as i've shown, unless you manipulate or fake the nose out. Those are two totally different shapes and no sort of resolution will make those shapes identical unless they're microscopic so you can't see them to match them up.

[simonshack]

Bone Z,

I really do not understand your agressive stance. I am not some kind of fool trying to make a career out of this. I only submit what has been my work for months and months of unpaid, enthusiastic research.


The only reason I'm asking you to wait a sec, is because I haven't yet found out how to reproduce my enlarged, full-screen psd versions of the nose in-nose-outs. I'll soon find out. Relax and don't be so confrontational.

Best regards

socialservice

[amazed!]

Simon

You can pixelate until you're blue in the face. It is essentially trivial pursuit and fairly well MEANINGLESS in the big picture.

That big picture is that the bad guys pulled this off and are destroying this country.

Until you can overcome the OBVIOUS evidence that at least 1 Boeing struck the towers, recorded by numerous cameras from different sources, your argument is basically moot.

[simonshack]

Until you can overcome the OBVIOUS evidence that at least 1 Boeing struck the towers, recorded by numerous cameras from different sources, your argument is basically moot.

OBVIOUS evidence?


Where is it ? Give it to me.

[simonshack]

OK, this will be my last post.


I've done all I can do with my best intentions to show that the tv broadcasts were fake. I'm not going to waste more time convincing a few people ( I used to respect you guys immensely for YOUR work) which seem unable to deal with new evidence.

Bye bye - keep up the real fight.


Cheers - hope to meet you all some day (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[amazed!]

Thank you Simon. Best wishes. Check out some of those videos and statements made by people OTHER THAN government agents.

[painter]

<s>
"So, anyone wishing to prove the nose-out is a different ‘object’ than the nose-in, has a formidable task on his hands."
<s>

Sorry for the large image but I know of no other way to do this:

1 ) I assume that we are discussing what an observed and recorded phenomena is and that the basic assumption is that it is NOT an actual nose of an aircraft having passed through WTC 2

2) My understanding is that the 'nose out' claim is based on the contention that what is being seen is an animation glitch -- an overshoot by the editor inserting a fake plane in aproach frames that passes through the building mask. Is this correct?

3 ) Assuming that this is the contention, would you agree that if a different video showed the same 'nose out' phenomena from a different angle, then the contention in #2 can not be true?

Look:

(IMG:http://www.offrampstudios.net/pilots/images/5noseouts.jpg)

So we have a different angle of view of the same phenomena, thus we can disregard contention 2.

HOWEVER, we are still left with a puzzling phenomena made all the more so because, as visual evidence has shown, there was no exit hole for this (what appears to be) dense debris pattern which very quickly ignites upon exiting. We know precisely where this phenomena appeared and it is directly above the area of the tower that later exhibited what some claim to be thermate reactions.

So, although I believe your contention regarding the nature of this phenomena is inaccurate, I do believe we have an anomaly worthy of some exploration. Lets not assume that we know what this is, one way or the other, so far as a video fakery or no plane theory is concerned. For as I believe this series of images makes obvious, if this video is "fake" it make no more "sense" than the data that was recovered from the Flight 77 FDR. In other words, it begs the question, if they were going to fake data, why not fake it in a way that more conclusively matched the story they were going to tell us?

[p.w.rapp]

Sanders
Cary (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/bigun.gif) simonshack
amazed


My stance:

1- There is something in what he sais.

2- Faked life feeds are difficult to understand (let alone proof) even by TV/camera professionals and thus has IMO no priority for a 9/11 investigation.

3- The 'Empire State left/right - puzzle is an obvious flaw in simonshack's reasoning. I thought from the beginning, that it was due to different camera positions. Sanders, you did an enormous job illustrating that.

So, if you ask me to find out where the buildings are, can you tell me where these 2 networks were filming from? That's the first question you should ask yourself. Do you live in New York? If you do, please go and find out. How did they scramble live camera units there after only 6 minutes (NBC at least) of the first strike?

How did NBC scramble live camera units after only 6 minutes?

My 2 Euro Cents ?

They filmed from the top of the Rockefeller Center where the NBC studios are located. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


I've been 'on top of the rocks' in Nov. last year / Zap



EDIT
It WAS filmed from the top of the Rockefeller Center!

Here's a pic from my visit. I was standing on the left corner of the building. If you sroll to the right you can see my grim visage. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)
(IMG:http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k46/zapza_rapp/Politik/Rock_empirecr.jpg)
compare:
(IMG:http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/6269/banknylu6.jpg)

[Natasha]

So, although I believe your contention regarding the nature of this phenomena is inaccurate, I do believe we have an anomaly worthy of some exploration. Lets not assume that we know what this is, one way or the other, so far as a video fakery or no plane theory is concerned.

Painter how much time transpired between these two camera angels first being shown? Were they both revealed at the same time?

Could one of them, have been created, just to help establish the other one as being real?

[Natasha]

Darn it!

I wish I had known Simon was here. Some of you guys are just too close minded about his work, and no way do I think he is trying to fool anybody.

I see no solid evidence to justify the accusations made against him as a fraud.

[p.w.rapp]

Darn it!

I wish I had known Simon was here. Some of you guys are just too close minded about his work, and no way do I think he is trying to fool anybody.

I see no solid evidence to justify the accusations made against him as a fraud.

Who said he was a fraud ??? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

So far the only thing I can say with some certainty on this thread is, that the Empire State 'puzzle' in September Clues is easy to explain.

I am sorry, that simonshack left.

[Natasha]

Darn it!

I wish I had known Simon was here. Some of you guys are just too close minded about his work, and no way do I think he is trying to fool anybody.

I see no solid evidence to justify the accusations made against him as a fraud.

Who said he was a fraud ??? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

So far the only thing I am sure about on this thread is, that the Empire State 'puzzle' in September Clues is easy to explain.

I am sorry, that simonshak left.

Well some have said just today, in other threads, that he is the same person as BSreg Fred, and he isn't I am sure of that. Also I keep seeing references to Simon's supposed intentionally disinformation, and I don't believe that either.

No I don't recall exactly which threads right now.

This post has been edited by Natasha: Aug 28 2007, 01:52 AM

[waterdancer]

Here are comparison pics for the ESB with WTC shots; I've run across several, but haven't compared them all for possible minute differences yet. I think it's possible that some of the footage we initially saw may have been webcam or similar feeds from the ESB, etc. WB 11 footage being one likely candidate. First 2- ~same location (top of the Rock judging by Zap's pic), different times; third one somewhat different location. Fourth one- possibly slightly diffrent location from either of the other two- close to the third one, though. Fifth one, again slightly different. The buildings in the far distance don't change much, but what the ESB blocks and doesn't block does. And another night time shot which looks to be a similar view as from the Rock, but slithly different obscuration once again
(IMG:http://www.gallupindependent.com/1999-2001/tn-9-11-01.JPEG)
(IMG:http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/03/30/PH2006033000779.jpg)
(IMG:http://www.thecityreview.com/terror15.jpg)
(IMG:http://md5summer.org/Postcards/images/Postcard20.jpg)
(IMG:http://www.terra.es/personal/rod.diaz/images/empire5.jpg)

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Aug 28 2007, 04:52 AM

[Sanders]

Who said he was a fraud ???

No one said simonshack was a fraud. I didn't, I asked him a direct question, which didn't imply anything.

I'm impressed and honored by the time you've taken to analyze the Empire State building shots...

Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

You have some good points, but you're overlooking many others.

No, I only addressed the things I saw that were erroneous. That bit about the background buildings not perceivably moving stuck out when I saw it, and I addressed it. When you are presenting evidence, each piece has to stand up on it's own. One piece of dubious evidence is not made credible by other evidence that might support the same claim. I'm not dissing your whole film, I was just addressing specific points in as thorough a way as I know how, as you should as well if you're going to put your name on it. (With all due respect!)

You might be surprised, if you haven't hung around and read other of my posts regarding this topic, by my opinions on all this. (BoneZ is probably gonna go (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/doh1.gif) "NO, Sanders!!!" when he reads this (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) - @BoneZ, keep doing what you're doing - the scientific method is the great equalizer IMO)

Disclaimer: These are just my opinions/hunches based on what I think I know - I'm baring them to simonshack because I sense he imagines me to believe something different, that my criticisms have something to do with my "feelings" about NPT/Fakery.

I think a "missile with wings" (whatever that is) was used to hit both towers (and maybe they used the same or similar to hit the Pentagon). I think this aircraft was incapable (too much weight/lift ratio) of flying at moderate speeds (and so it couldn't/didn't). I don't think a mostly aluminum plane can penetrate a steel framed building at any speed, speed does not impart any special qualities on the plane over the building in this case. There is more destruction at higher speeds of course, but both the plane and the building suffer. A plane hitting a building at 500 mph is equivilent to a building hitting a plane at 500 mph. My thoughts on this are confimed by the frames that show the plane "melting" into the building. These images make my bullsh#t meter go bezerk. I buy Factfinder General's theory that at least the nose (I think maybe the leading edges of the wings as well?) were laced with DU, and that that is the source of the "flash". I think this aircraft looked enough like a plane from the ground to have fooled many witnesses.

I think the image of the Boeing was inserted over the "missile". I think Hezarkhani took his video from the deck of a ferry moored at Battery Park, and after the attacks he and Ms. Taylor took the ferry to Ellis Island and handed their images over to a government crew who immediately went to work laying in the plane images - I am told that the federal facility there has a sophisticated multi-media center where this work could have been done. I suspect they spent some time on these to make them look good, and that's why they are the most widely shown images. As far as I know they are the only close-ups of the crash.

I think the idea that entire shots were layered together is junk. I have been over many of these claims in detail, and none of them so far hold up to scrutiny. These claims are invariably based on misinterpretation of the effects of distance, perspective and zoom factors. These effects can be very misleading and seductive if you are not paying attention IMO.

I could be full of sh#t, and I acknowlege it. I embrace this hypothesis, tentatively, because it's the only one that I can think of that accounts for the evidence that I am aware of.

I also believe the whole NPT/TV Fakery rage, while most probably being true to the extent that images of a Boeing were superimposed on the footage that was released or broadcast, is part of a disinfo campaign, that everyone mixed up in this is being unwittingly manipulated. To "get" this requires thinking outside of the box ... Disinfo works much better when it is based on a germ of truth, and there are people in the CIA/DoD that "get it", to our great disadvantage. (I assume I needn't explain why the current focus on NPT/Fakery might have been cooked up by our enemies ... even if it was conveniently true to some extent?)

There must be those of course that are involved in promoting NPT to a destructive end and spreading disinfo wittingly, but I have no idea who they are. I suspect they are connected with the 911researchers site - I only say that because when I see people attacking truthers who are actually breathing down the necks of the perpetrators, to me that should be a good clue that they are on the wrong side. As an example, there have been numerous attacks against David Ray Griffin - I have researched it, and the claims appear to be warrantless (not surprised ... i.e. he is not in any way connected with the Rockefeller Foundation, he just got a good deal on a R.F. owed hall he rented because he brought a lot of people. He's being attacked because he's making real progress in waking people up - and it's no accident that his attackers are connected with the NPT crowd).

To me, you (simonshack) do not fit this mold. You seem sincere, but some of your claims appear to be based more on a desire to convince people of your POV than honest research. Regardless, please accept this advice -

Tighten it up ! If you have a sense that something is this or that, investigate it as if you were trying to debunk your own suspicions. Please don't slack just because you want to believe what you think, and think you should get others to think the same - stick with what you can prove !!! It does no one any good to release claims that cannot be substantiated ! I cannot say this strongly enough.

I am not attacking you, simonshack, I am attacking your eagerness to prove something that I am certain is untrue (buildings in the wrong place), and leaning on the disceptive nature of photography to make the case. In my opinion, get off the "buildings-are-in-the-wrong-place" thing - it's a fools errand. I've seen NO evidence of it, and I've seen a lot of claims being made, and have satisfied at least myself that they are all unfounded.

This is serious - bogus claims are destructive, dangerous, divisive! Simonshack, I support you in your research, but hey, if I see anything like the Empire State Building thing in your next video I'm gonna bust your b@lls, you can count on it.

Keep it tight - be your own worst critic. It will serve you well.

Sorry for the long post. Good luck and best wishes for an end to the New Century Madness.

(forgive me if I came off condescending, but I feel very stongly about the things I mentioned - and, hey, I'm 50)

Sanders, NOOOO!!!!!!!!! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/crybaby2.gif)















(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[Sanders]

Hehe (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

That really cracked me up (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)


Honestly, why is it that people become such enemies because they believe either that real Boeings crashed into buildings or they didn't crash into buildings? It's not like anyone screwed anyone's girlfriend or wife or husband or something?? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

So, when is anyone gonna get interestd in who the perps are? I have a list of 600 names that need weeding out - or is that not as important as whether or not TV Fakery was employed or not? No one is interested.

The whole NPT subject has been plopped in our laps purposedly to distract and discredit us. Guess what happens when NPT really makes prime-time... ? (We are all nut-jobs)

[Factfinder Gener...]

I think a "missile with wings" (whatever that is) was used to hit both towers (and maybe they used the same or similar to hit the Pentagon).  I think this aircraft was incapable (too much weight/lift ratio) of flying at moderate speeds (and so it couldn't/didn't).  I don't think a mostly aluminum plane can penetrate a steel framed building at any speed, speed does not impart any special qualities on the plane over the building in this case.  There is more destruction at higher speeds of course, but both the plane and the building suffer.  A plane hitting a building at 500 mph is equivalent to a building hitting a plane at 500 mph.  My thoughts on this are confimed by the frames that show the plane "melting" into the building.  These images make my bullsh#t meter go bezerk.  I buy Factfinder General's theory that at least the nose (I think maybe the leading edges of the wings as well?) were laced with DU, and that that is the source of the "flash".  I think this aircraft looked enough like a plane from the ground to have fooled many witnesses.

I think the image of the Boeing was inserted over the "missile".  I think Hezarkhani took his video from the deck of a ferry moored at Battery Park, and after the attacks he and Ms. Taylor took the ferry to Ellis Island and handed their images over to a government  crew who immediately went to work laying in the plane images - I am told that the federal facility there has a sophisticated multi-media center where this work could have been done. I suspect they spent some time on these to make them look good, and that's why they are the most widely shown images. As far as I know they are the only close-ups of the crash. 

You and me, my friend, are REALLY close in our analysis. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/shake.gif)

P.S. and our assessment of Simon. (I think he's well intentioned but is succumbing to outside "influences.")

[Guest_Ningen_*]

Hi Sanders. You raise some interesting questions, though hard to answer. Your concerns are obviously valid in a general sense - where is this thing going?

About Griffin, I don't buy into the criticisms of him having some elitist or cultish goals. One of my favorite books is For the Common Good, co-written by one of his theologian colleagues John Cobb.

The problem with his work, though, is that it takes so much of the official story as true, especially in arguing the standdown. He wonders why the military would change the story from one that made them look worse to one that made them look better. To deceive, of course. But what is the deception? I see his work as closing the loop of disinformation with the standdown myth. I also wonder whether he unnecessarily trashes the "NORAD tapes," as some of what saw in Vanity Fair may be genuine confusion on the part of FAA and NEADs controllers.

I don't think this is intentional on his part - does it matter? His books have lots of useful good information and excellent arguments, but I am concerned about how he chooses his premises from which to make those arguments.