911myths on Mineta, Cheney and Clarke

[FalseFlag]

Guess what, Hotrod, the hair is identical.

No, it's not. The fact that you instantly resort to name-calling removes all credibility from anything else you have to say.

The top photo is taken with a wide-angle lens as evidenced by the angular distortion in the lower corners. It's obvious.

No, it's not obvious. You have no evidence a wide-angle lens was used, because you don't know what type of camera was used. The type of film, or sensor size, determines what focal lengths are considered zoom, normal, wide-angle or ultra wide-angle. Your insistence that a wide-angle lens was being used without knowing what type of camera was being used is proof that your claim has no basis in fact. Additionally, even if a wide-angle lens was used, distortion in the middle of the lens would be at a minimum, if at all.

A lock of her hair has fallen across her face in the second picture. If you have dated a woman you'd known this happens.

Exactly! You do see that her hair in the second picture is at her eye level. It is physically impossible for the hair in the first picture to get in that woman's eyes. It is not long enough.

You can get a fix on the time the first picture is taken by the image of the WTC on the TV. They moved to the underground command bunker and stayed there later. It was a long day, at one point AA77 was headed into D.C. and nobody knew its target. Al lot of people sweating it out.

This argument has no relevance. TV time stamps do not conclusively prove anything. If the pictures were staged, they would have been playing a loop to make people think the pictures were being taken at a certain time on 9/11.

The idea that these pictures were staged is inconsistent with the FACT that PBS Frontline had to use an FOIA petition to get access to them. Why stage pictures if you're not going to release them. Why take 200 staged pictures if you're not going to released them all?

I'm not alleging 200 pictures were staged. I am questioning the authenticity of the pictures taken in Cheney's office, and possibly two taken in the PEOC. The FOIA argument does nothing to prove or disprove the authenticity of the pictures. Again, you're saying they didn't have to do this, so the pictures must be real. This argument has no merit.

The theory that there's a look-alike Mary Matalin is easily the dumbest thing since the WTC death-ray.

It might have been before, but now I'm certain it's not. Each ridiculous argument against my theory just proves that I could be right.

None of these pictures have anything to do why what was occurring in New York or at the Pentagon. Just reaction shots from the White House photographer. He took as many pictures on 9-10-2001, why not look at those and compare...you know... until your new meds arrive...

The pictures in Cheney's office are being used to "prove" Cheney's whereabouts on the morning of 9/11. They are entirely relevant to the discussion, and every attempt to dismiss this just proves they are extremely important.

 

[FalseFlag]

OMG, the m&ms are out of focus, did they use stand in m&ms? This is obstruction of ....

Again, these arguments do nothing but help my position.

 

[FalseFlag]

Gotta be.

Unless you're really that ignorant.

I have no idea what you mean by Poe. Your esoteric BS is meaningless.

 

[pgimeno]

If the pictures are staged, the people in the pictures and the person who took the picture are guilty of obstruction of justice.

No. IF the pictures are staged, WITH the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration blah blah, THEN the person WHO manipulated the pictures is guilty.

Even assuming by hypothesis that you're right and they were staged, you're jumping the gun in at least two more aspects: intent, and who's assigned guilt.

 

[FalseFlag]

And that was what? Call a failed opinion, BS? It is the same person in the photos. One out of focus, wide angle, one in focus at what appears to be a different focal length.

You are basing your opinion on camera issues. Camera issues do not have any effect on the length of someone's hair. They just don't.

You see what I see. You just refuse to admit it because it involves 9/11, and you absolutely refuse ANYTHING that even has a chance of going against the official story. I see right through this, and so does anyone else with the ability to reason and think critically.

 

[TJM]

I have no idea what you mean by Poe. Your esoteric BS is meaningless.

Yup. Poe.

Unless you don't understand how hairspray works.

But then we're back to ignorant.

Which is it pal?

 

[pgimeno]

I can finally post pictures and links now.

Explain to me how it is possible for the hair on this person

[qimg]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/385/19295977883_64a97dd459_b.jpg[/qimg]

to be the hair on this person.

[qimg]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/365/19730326989_920e6c834e_b.jpg[/qimg]

In the first picture there is no possible way for her hair to get in her eyes. In the second picture her hair is now long enough to reach her eyes. How is this possible in less than 12 hours? Answer: It's not possible.

The fact that so many of you are trying to change the subject by asking why they would do this tells me I'm right. So, thanks, I appreciate it. You all did exactly what I expected.

Really? That's the mystery of the hair growth?

I see the hair strand quite long, AND mounted over other hair.

 

[FalseFlag]

No. IF the pictures are staged, WITH the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration blah blah, THEN the person WHO manipulated the pictures is guilty.

Even assuming by hypothesis that you're right and they were staged, you're jumping the gun in at least two more aspects: intent, and who's assigned guilt.

If the pictures were staged, the intent is there because they wore the same clothes they did on 9/11, or got a woman to wear what Mary Matalin was wearing on 9/11. The intent is also there because they were playing footage from 9/11 on the TV. The intent of all of this would have been to show Cheney was somewhere he was not. I think the person who planned this, the people in the photo, and the photographer could all be complicit in the obstruction of justice charge.

If the pictures were staged, I do concede that assigning culpability would be an issue.

 

[FalseFlag]

Really? That's the mystery of the hair growth?

I see the hair strand quite long, AND mounted over other hair.

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/hair_strand.png[/qimg]

OK. In my image I have outlined the strand you have zoomed in to. The highlight is in yellow. I have then outlined her eye in blue. It would be impossible for that strand to reach her eye level, even if she pulled it as hard as she could.

 

[FalseFlag]

Yup. Poe.

Unless you don't understand how hairspray works.

But then we're back to ignorant.

Which is it pal?

Poe beauty products.

Now I get it.

But no. Hairspray can only account for so much.

 

[beachnut]

Again, these arguments do nothing but help my position.

Your obstruction claim has failed, the photo is the same person as you mess up measuring a photo to match your opinion.

it is not a position, it is an opinion based on lack of understanding out of focus, and photography science


Oh noes, where was Cheney? Who cares.

 

[FalseFlag]

Your obstruction claim has failed, the photo is the same person as you mess up measuring a photo to match your opinion.

Instead of attempting to discredit me with words, why don't you post a picture using your measurements? Simply saying I'm wrong is meaningless. Prove I'm wrong. Show me what you see by posting your own pictures.

it is not a position, it is an opinion based on lack of understanding out of focus, and photography science

Meaningless drivel.

Oh noes, where was Cheney? Who cares.

Who cares? Everyone with a legitimate interest in what actually happened on 9/11 cares about where Cheney was and when. It is extremely relevant. What Cheney did, when he did it, and where he did it are all extremely relevant to any discussion about 9/11.

 

[pgimeno]

If the pictures were staged, the intent is there because they wore the same clothes they did on 9/11, or got a woman to wear what Mary Matalin was wearing on 9/11. The intent is also there because they were playing footage from 9/11 on the TV. The intent of all of this would have been to show Cheney was somewhere he was not. I think the person who planned this, the people in the photo, and the photographer could all be complicit in the obstruction of justice charge.

How do you know the intent? Seems that you have the verdict decided before the trial.

OK. In my image I have outlined the strand you have zoomed in to. The highlight is in yellow. I have then outlined her eye in blue. It would be impossible for that strand to reach her eye level, even if she pulled it as hard as she could.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_707925602238ce1329.png[/qimg]

1. You have made it shorter. I marked where the strand actually ends. You missed the tips. The picture is quite out of focus, so it's hard to say where it actually ends, but that much is clear. Look at the two dark points that are part of the same hair.

2. You keep forgetting that the strand is leaning on more hair in the first picture, and not in the second. That gives it more length.

3. You don't know the actual length of the strand, since there's a part hidden. On that basis you can't claim the hair grew.

Your analysis is flawed.

 

[FalseFlag]

How do you know the intent? Seems that you have the verdict decided before the trial.

Imagine you are one of the people in the photos. It doesn't matter who; just pick one. You are told by somebody to wear the same outfit and jewelry you did on 9/11. That in itself should seem odd. You then go to Cheney's office and there is footage from 9/11 playing on the TV. You then see a photographer and he takes some pictures. How could you not know that you were in a photo shoot that was intended to represent an earlier event? The intent of all this is deception. I don't understand why we have an issue on this. It seems clear what the intent is. What other reason would there be to do this, other than to deceive?

 

[FalseFlag]

1. You have made it shorter. I marked where the strand actually ends. You missed the tips. The picture is quite out of focus, so it's hard to say where it actually ends, but that much is clear. Look at the two dark points that are part of the same hair.

2. You keep forgetting that the strand is leaning on more hair in the first picture, and not in the second. That gives it more length.

3. You don't know the actual length of the strand, since there's a part hidden. On that basis you can't claim the hair grew.

Your analysis is flawed.

The top horizontal layer is the highest and outermost layer. What you think is the bottom of the strand is actually a different strand. I have drawn a line between layers.

 

[pgimeno]

The top horizontal layer is the highest and outermost layer. What you think is the bottom of the strand is actually a different strand. I have drawn a line between layers.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7079256022d8defd26.png[/qimg]

You're making that up. Here's a refocus + levels version to help you understand the actual structure of the hair and of that strand in particular:

 

[FalseFlag]

You're making that up. Here's a refocus + levels version to help you understand the actual structure of the hair and of that strand in particular:

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/hair_refocus.jpg[/qimg]

How am I making anything up? I can take your edited picture and draw the exact same lines that show three horizontal layers.




The first red line is somewhat hard to see, but it's there.

Why don't you draw lines where you think the layers are? Show me what you see that I don't.

 

[TJM]

Hairspray can only account for so much.

Of what?

 

[beachnut]

Of what?

That 911 was a false-flag

 

[FalseFlag]

That 911 was a false-flag

That post has no pictures. What is the problem?