• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Matt Nelson: 9/11 Debris - An Investigation of Ground Zero

MattNelson said:
I concur, FYI, as briefly mentioned in my book, p. 141 of the PDF. "Pentagon theories have long been the bane of the 9/11 Truth Movement – the poison in the well, so to speak..."

I haven't thought about that well for a while. But I did watch "The Ring" recently. Samara, Craig, and Aldo (of CIT) probably hang out. Check out this old but still hilarious video mocking CIT, Craig and Aldo's Excellent European Adventure. (Dailymotion link, apologies for ads)
Click to expand...

You should email that to rubygray, since she thinks that CIT are the best.
 
As usual, of course you are mistaken

I have never said CIT are "the best".

I have frequently and consistently pointed out that although I value the majority of their research which is head and shoulders above anything that any others ever even attempted, they made grievous errors with the true evidence given by several crucial witnesses.

The rot set in with their first interviews, namely LLOYDE ENGLAND, and related to his position on Route 27, FATHER STEPHEN MCGRAW, JOEL SUCHERMAN, VIN NARAYANAN & MARY ANN OWENS in particular.

Having got LLOYDE ENGLAND's evidence totally misconstrued, they egregiously tarred numerous other genuine witnesses with the same mucky brush.

By so doing, they discredited and hamstrung their own otherwise excellent case. It bogged down 10 years ago and can never be revived until they correct these fatal errors.

When LLOYDE ENGLAND's true evidence is factored into the story, all becomes clear.
Suddenly there are many more north-of-Citgo witnesses than anyone ever dreamed of.

Then, the only place that plane could have flown, is over the Pentagon, which clears up dozens more curiously enigmatic testimonies from people who did their best to describe a split-second glimpse of an event which did not resemble a solid irresistible force crashing into a massive immovable object.

Nobody ever described seeing the alleged smoke / vapour trail, which also did not cast a shadow on the lawn on those Gatecam sequences.

All these quibbles about whether whichever engine ingested a tree or lamp, are academic and futile.

However, one of the Gatecam videos does show "watermark" images of a large 757 jet banking right as it approaches the Pentagon, in 2 frames, 2-3 frames prior to the explosion.
 
rubygray said:
As usual, of course you are mistaken

I have never said CIT are "the best".

I have frequently and consistently pointed out that although I value the majority of their research which is head and shoulders above anything that any others ever even attempted, they made grievous errors with the true evidence given by several crucial witnesses.

The rot set in with their first interviews, namely LLOYDE ENGLAND, and related to his position on Route 27, FATHER STEPHEN MCGRAW, JOEL SUCHERMAN, VIN NARAYANAN & MARY ANN OWENS in particular.

Having got LLOYDE ENGLAND's evidence totally misconstrued, they egregiously tarred numerous other genuine witnesses with the same mucky brush.

By so doing, they discredited and hamstrung their own otherwise excellent case. It bogged down 10 years ago and can never be revived until they correct these fatal errors.

When LLOYDE ENGLAND's true evidence is factored into the story, all becomes clear.
Suddenly there are many more north-of-Citgo witnesses than anyone ever dreamed of.

Then, the only place that plane could have flown, is over the Pentagon, which clears up dozens more curiously enigmatic testimonies from people who did their best to describe a split-second glimpse of an event which did not resemble a solid irresistible force crashing into a massive immovable object.

Nobody ever described seeing the alleged smoke / vapour trail, which also did not cast a shadow on the lawn on those Gatecam sequences.

All these quibbles about whether whichever engine ingested a tree or lamp, are academic and futile.

However, one of the Gatecam videos does show "watermark" images of a large 757 jet banking right as it approaches the Pentagon, in 2 frames, 2-3 frames prior to the explosion.
Click to expand...

You are correct that s my wording, however in your posts you have made a case that CIT did very good research in uncovering the anomalies that they and you still "see". Unfortunately you are incorrect look at the physical data and this trumps your eye witness accounts, especially since most were taken for the most part years after the event.
 
rubygray said:
However, one of the Gatecam videos does show "watermark" images of a large 757 jet banking right as it approaches the Pentagon, in 2 frames, 2-3 frames prior to the explosion.
Click to expand...

So you see a plane banking in one tenth of second before a explosion that is maybe two tenths of a second later.

For fun, let's say the jet was doing 200 MPH, slightly above it's 166 stall speed. That's three feet a second. Or 36 inches. So you saw, a bank in 6 maybe 7 inches of flight?

In two tenths of a second, a jumbo jet was able to swerve out of the way of a building it was maybe 15 inches from? I doubt there is a pilot in the world that can put a jumbo jet within single digit inches of a building and not hit it, mostly due to the turning radius. And then fly away clean from an explosion that was inches away.
 
rubygray said:
As usual, of course you are mistaken

I have never said CIT are "the best".

I have frequently and consistently pointed out that although I value the majority of their research which is head and shoulders above anything that any others ever even attempted, they made grievous errors with the true evidence given by several crucial witnesses.

The rot set in with their first interviews, namely LLOYDE ENGLAND, and related to his position on Route 27, FATHER STEPHEN MCGRAW, JOEL SUCHERMAN, VIN NARAYANAN & MARY ANN OWENS in particular.

Having got LLOYDE ENGLAND's evidence totally misconstrued, they egregiously tarred numerous other genuine witnesses with the same mucky brush.

By so doing, they discredited and hamstrung their own otherwise excellent case. It bogged down 10 years ago and can never be revived until they correct these fatal errors.

When LLOYDE ENGLAND's true evidence is factored into the story, all becomes clear.
Suddenly there are many more north-of-Citgo witnesses than anyone ever dreamed of.

Then, the only place that plane could have flown, is over the Pentagon, which clears up dozens more curiously enigmatic testimonies from people who did their best to describe a split-second glimpse of an event which did not resemble a solid irresistible force crashing into a massive immovable object.

Nobody ever described seeing the alleged smoke / vapour trail, which also did not cast a shadow on the lawn on those Gatecam sequences.

All these quibbles about whether whichever engine ingested a tree or lamp, are academic and futile.

However, one of the Gatecam videos does show "watermark" images of a large 757 jet banking right as it approaches the Pentagon, in 2 frames, 2-3 frames prior to the explosion.
Click to expand...

I and others have asked many times: Where did the plane go? What happened to the crew/passengers, where are they? How do you reconcile hard evidence found inside the building with that of your belief? Namely DNA, plane parts, burned corpses? How do you reconcile the hard FDR evidence that negates you northside flight path? Along with the impossible turn?
 
CIT failed, and 77 impacted the Pentagon

rubygray said:
As usual, of course you are mistaken

I have never said CIT are "the best".

I have frequently and consistently pointed out that although I value the majority of their research which is head and shoulders above anything that any others ever even attempted, they made grievous errors with the true evidence given by several crucial witnesses.

The rot set in with their first interviews, namely LLOYDE ENGLAND, and related to his position on Route 27, FATHER STEPHEN MCGRAW, JOEL SUCHERMAN, VIN NARAYANAN & MARY ANN OWENS in particular.

Having got LLOYDE ENGLAND's evidence totally misconstrued, they egregiously tarred numerous other genuine witnesses with the same mucky brush.

By so doing, they discredited and hamstrung their own otherwise excellent case. It bogged down 10 years ago and can never be revived until they correct these fatal errors.

When LLOYDE ENGLAND's true evidence is factored into the story, all becomes clear.
Suddenly there are many more north-of-Citgo witnesses than anyone ever dreamed of.

Then, the only place that plane could have flown, is over the Pentagon, which clears up dozens more curiously enigmatic testimonies from people who did their best to describe a split-second glimpse of an event which did not resemble a solid irresistible force crashing into a massive immovable object.

Nobody ever described seeing the alleged smoke / vapour trail, which also did not cast a shadow on the lawn on those Gatecam sequences.

All these quibbles about whether whichever engine ingested a tree or lamp, are academic and futile.

However, one of the Gatecam videos does show "watermark" images of a large 757 jet banking right as it approaches the Pentagon, in 2 frames, 2-3 frames prior to the explosion.
Click to expand...

FDR proves you and CIT are wrong, and due to the facts - you and CIT are spreading the dumbest lies in history because you can't grasp reality. The FDR found in the Pentagon with all the DNA (except the small boy) of the crew passengers and terrorists, proves you are spreading at best fantasy, and you don't care.

Why do you lie about 9/11? Is it for money, or out of ignorance?

BTW, the tower at the airport next to the Pentagon would see a flyover of 77, you lost due to FDR. Making up wild lies about a flyover is silly.

Gatecam has the exact jet fuel fire ball you get with an impact of 77 at high speed into the Pentagon, but you can't grasp reality. You have no idea how to investigate an aircraft incident, and it shows.
 
Redwood said:
How telling thqt 9/11 discussion has been reduced to meaningless details of that day.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I find the stuff about involvement of at least part of the Saudi government (along with maybe the Pakistani intelligence services) more intriguing - and more plausible, considering bin Laden's Saudi/Gulf Arab fundraising networks in the 80s during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and his reputed ties to Pakistani intelligence (who basically created the Taliban, which was also heavily funded by Saudi and other hard-line "Wahhabi" donors).

For some reason most 9/11 Truthers aren't as interested in this kind of thing - perhaps because it jives with the so-called "official" (read: factual) story, which is that a largely Saudi team of Islamist terrorists trained and funded by an organization led by a notorious Saudi, who had repeatedly declared his intentions to attack the United States and whose operatives and allies had already attacked the United States - mostly overseas, but also, in 1993, the World Trade Center itself - were responsible.

To the extent most Truthers are interested in foreign government involvement in 9/11, it involves dancing Israelis/the Mossad - naturally. :rolleyes:

Congratulations 9/11 Truthers, perhaps the one thing you've accomplished is discrediting and distracting from more measured and reasonable people who think that there might be unresolved questions about things like the extent of Saudi involvement in 9/11. I hope you're happy. :rolleyes:
 
Leftus said:
So you see a plane banking in one tenth of second before a explosion that is maybe two tenths of a second later.

For fun, let's say the jet was doing 200 MPH, slightly above it's 166 stall speed. That's three feet a second. Or 36 inches. So you saw, a bank in 6 maybe 7 inches of flight?

In two tenths of a second, a jumbo jet was able to swerve out of the way of a building it was maybe 15 inches from? I doubt there is a pilot in the world that can put a jumbo jet within single digit inches of a building and not hit it, mostly due to the turning radius. And then fly away clean from an explosion that was inches away.
Click to expand...

You have not read what I wrote.
You are just being ridiculous.

The images of the plane are seen in the sky, at an elevation high enough to easily clear the Pentagon roof, several seconds (or frames) before the explosion.

Many credible eyewitnesses (including ATC Sean Boger in the Heliport Tower) stated that the plane was much higher than the low-and-level-across-the-lawn of the official story.
Many of them testified that the plane was up to, or over, 80 feet above their cars as it crossed Route 27.
In that case, there is no possible way that the plane could have impacted the ground floor of the Pentagon, in a horizontal attitude, from there.

Two eyewitnesses stated that they saw the plane LIFTING or PIVOTING UP as it approached the Pentagon. DARIUS PRATHER, ROBERT TURCIOS.
"SKARLET" was an eyewitness who could not convince herself that the plane hit the building, but she thought it "pulled up at the last minute".

Many eyewitnesses testified that the plane hit the building much higher than the ground floor hole shows, including ATC Sean Boger, who watched from the Heliport Tower.

These 2 images are on sequential frames of the Gatecam video #2. The best resolution video is on cjnewson88's channel, here.

9/11 Pentagon Attack Video Gate Camera 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHHWa8coZOk&t=34s

The front of a 757 appears at the right of the frame at 00:18, and the full plane is seen at 00:19.

The alleged "tail" of the plane and smoke trail are seen behind and above the pillar at 00:22, and the explosion occurs at 00:23.

Numerous witnesses testified that there was a "DELAY" before the sound and sight of the explosion.

The plane is (as many witnesses testified) banking a little to the right. You can see the underside of the left wing, and both engines.

It is as though the person tasked with the job of deleting a 757 jet from the sky in two frames of the Gatecam footage, left a telltale whistleblower clue.
 
751125ed8df11f3253.jpg


751125ed8df120e4b8.jpg


751125ed8df12166c5.jpg


751125ed8df5df3ed0.jpg


751125ed8df5e0a1f1.jpg



Those images are uncannily similar to the view of the plane seen by STEVE RISKUS just across the highway, next to the cemetery retaining wall.

751125e564488ec748.jpg
 
rubygray said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/751125ed8df11f3253.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/751125ed8df120e4b8.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/751125ed8df12166c5.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/751125ed8df5df3ed0.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/751125ed8df5e0a1f1.jpg[/qimg]


Those images are uncannily similar to the view of the plane seen by STEVE RISKUS just across the highway, next to the cemetery retaining wall.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/751125e564488ec748.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You are seeing ghosts and believe they to be images of an airplane? You really need to check both your eyesight and reasoning skills.
 
A more important question: What was Spongebob doing there? Is he *gasp* involved in all this?

ETA:

Also pretty embarrassing for the guy who edited these photos. One can only guess how long they had to randomly play with the sliders in Photoshop until something appeared that very very very very very remotely resembled an airplane.
 
Last edited:
rubygray said:
You have not read what I wrote.
You are just being ridiculous.

The images of the plane are seen in the sky, at an elevation high enough to easily clear the Pentagon roof, several seconds (or frames) before the explosion.
Click to expand...

That's not a video, that's a slideshow. Also, the plane enters the slideshow, from your video, at 22 seconds. It's a fireball at 23 seconds. This banking you see, in frames that don't exist, is the ridiculous part. The video is about a frame a second. Even at stall speeds, the plane is covering.

Two eyewitnesses stated that they saw the plane LIFTING or PIVOTING UP as it approached the Pentagon. DARIUS PRATHER, ROBERT TURCIOS.
"SKARLET" was an eyewitness who could not convince herself that the plane hit the building, but she thought it "pulled up at the last minute".
Click to expand...

Got it, the plane pulled up at the last minute, despite being at an already safe altitude.

Many eyewitnesses testified that the plane hit the building much higher than the ground floor hole shows, including ATC Sean Boger, who watched from the Heliport Tower.
Click to expand...

Got it, the plane hit the building and did not pull up at the last minute.

So maybe I'm not the one confused, or not reading what was written. It can't BOTH pull up and miss and hit the pentagon. As your evidence claims.

The front of a 757 appears at the right of the frame at 00:18, and the full plane is seen at 00:19.

The alleged "tail" of the plane and smoke trail are seen behind and above the pillar at 00:22, and the explosion occurs at 00:23.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. At stall speed, 160 mph, the plane is covering 234.7 feet every second. For you to be correct, that field of view would have to show just about 1200 feet. of green grass. The north parking lot is 1100 feet away. The helipad is roughly 800 feet. There is no way your version is correct. There is no lawn at the pentagon that vast. And we are talking about stall speed. If it's any faster, the distances get shorter, any slower and it crashes early.

It is as though the person tasked with the job of deleting a 757 jet from the sky in two frames of the Gatecam footage, left a telltale whistleblower clue.
Click to expand...

It's more likely they replaced Rodan with a 757, than what you suggest. The truth is that fireball. And then the flash a few seconds later. Classic Rodan.
 
Leftus said:
That's not a video, that's a slideshow. Also, the plane enters the slideshow, from your video, at 22 seconds. It's a fireball at 23 seconds. This banking you see, in frames that don't exist, is the ridiculous part. The video is about a frame a second. Even at stall speeds, the plane is covering.

Got it, the plane pulled up at the last minute, despite being at an already safe altitude.

Got it, the plane hit the building and did not pull up at the last minute.

So maybe I'm not the one confused, or not reading what was written. It can't BOTH pull up and miss and hit the pentagon. As your evidence claims.

Nonsense. At stall speed, 160 mph, the plane is covering 234.7 feet every second. For you to be correct, that field of view would have to show just about 1200 feet. of green grass. The north parking lot is 1100 feet away. The helipad is roughly 800 feet. There is no way your version is correct. There is no lawn at the pentagon that vast. And we are talking about stall speed. If it's any faster, the distances get shorter, any slower and it crashes early.

It's more likely they replaced Rodan with a 757, than what you suggest. The truth is that fireball. And then the flash a few seconds later. Classic Rodan.
Click to expand...

What is really bad about her "case" is that she uses witness statements to build her "beliefs" without understanding the ramifications of those statements
1. Witnesses are very unreliable five people can witness the same event and give five very different descriptions of the event.
2. Individuals memory changes with time.

Then she discards hard evidence because it has been altered or planted by "them" to be used in constructing the true narrative of the event.

Additionally you have pointed inconsistencies in her own presentations.
 
Allen773 said:
Yeah, I find the stuff about involvement of at least part of the Saudi government (along with maybe the Pakistani intelligence services) more intriguing - and more plausible, considering bin Laden's Saudi/Gulf Arab fundraising networks in the 80s during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and his reputed ties to Pakistani intelligence (who basically created the Taliban, which was also heavily funded by Saudi and other hard-line "Wahhabi" donors).

For some reason most 9/11 Truthers aren't as interested in this kind of thing - perhaps because it jives with the so-called "official" (read: factual) story, which is that a largely Saudi team of Islamist terrorists trained and funded by an organization led by a notorious Saudi, who had repeatedly declared his intentions to attack the United States and whose operatives and allies had already attacked the United States - mostly overseas, but also, in 1993, the World Trade Center itself - were responsible.

To the extent most Truthers are interested in foreign government involvement in 9/11, it involves dancing Israelis/the Mossad - naturally. :rolleyes:

Congratulations 9/11 Truthers, perhaps the one thing you've accomplished is discrediting and distracting from more measured and reasonable people who think that there might be unresolved questions about things like the extent of Saudi involvement in 9/11. I hope you're happy. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

9/11 researcher Jeff Hill put together this video, "9/11 Unmasked - Who is Qualid Benomrane," which looks at the Saudi angle in some detail... video run time 11:29.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OszdR2C6E4c
 
bknight said:
What is really bad about her "case" is that she uses witness statements to build her "beliefs" without understanding the ramifications of those statements
1. Witnesses are very unreliable five people can witness the same event and give five very different descriptions of the event.
2. Individuals memory changes with time.

Then she discards hard evidence because it has been altered or planted by "them" to be used in constructing the true narrative of the event.

Additionally you have pointed inconsistencies in her own presentations.
Click to expand...

And to think I didn't even need to point out she is using the tombstone names as witness. As opposed to the real, flesh and blood human names. Her witnesses aren't even real people!
 
fantasy fail repeated

rubygray said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/751125ed8df11f3253.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/751125ed8df120e4b8.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/751125ed8df12166c5.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/751125ed8df5df3ed0.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/751125ed8df5e0a1f1.jpg[/qimg]


Those images are uncannily similar to the view of the plane seen by STEVE RISKUS just across the highway, next to the cemetery retaining wall.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/751125e564488ec748.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

What a bunch of BS. FDR proves you wrong again. Too bad you don't do reality, you will be stuck with your fantasy forever.
 
"Numerous witnesses testified that there was a "DELAY" before the sound and sight of the explosion."

I just can't believe this...
 
MattNelson said:
9/11 researcher Jeff Hill put together this video, "9/11 Unmasked - Who is Qualid Benomrane," which looks at the Saudi angle in some detail... video run time 11:29.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OszdR2C6E4c
Click to expand...

Jeff Hill, the No-Planer (x i guess), pretending to be a researcher for truth.

Jeff is calling the detectives like he did the FBI, Boeing, and others. It is funny he was so gullible to be pushing Loose Change as proof of who did it... I suppose if you are high, Loose Change sounds plausible, most likely just plain gullible.

Did he make a video denouncing his old no plane days.

How much can you make with enticing named you-tube videos, like "9/11 Unmasked"...
 
MattNelson said:
Bandwidth limit exceeded, as usual in September. A download is available at archive.org here:

https://archive.org/download/911Deb...vestigation_of_Ground_Zero_by_Matt_Nelson.pdf
Click to expand...

If I have never commented on the report, let me congratulate your fine work, something I don't nd I don't mean this in a caustic manner, I would have accomplished. Small nit pick the descriptions of the illustrations could have been better described in the information of the image not the body of the work.

Again great work overall.
 
rubygray said:
:snipped pictures of ghost plane:

Those images are uncannily similar to the view of the plane seen by STEVE RISKUS just across the highway, next to the cemetery retaining wall.
Click to expand...

No airliner that small has a cloaking device.
 
bknight said:
If I have never commented on the report, let me congratulate your fine work, something I don't nd I don't mean this in a caustic manner, I would have accomplished. Small nit pick the descriptions of the illustrations could have been better described in the information of the image not the body of the work.

Again great work overall.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Let me know which images need better captions so I can update for the next edition.
 
rubygray said:
I never suggested it did.

The mature response to posts is to address the substance of them in context, not to hurl derisive one-liners at a straw-man invention of your own.
Click to expand...

the topic is about ground zero, and there is proof it was flight 11 and 175 at NYC, and your lies about 9/11 are not reality

Why are you void of evidence to support your claims?
 
rubygray said:
I never suggested it did.

The mature response to posts is to address the substance of them in context, not to hurl derisive one-liners at a straw-man invention of your own.
Click to expand...
Okay. I see photos with arrows added with MS Paint. You claim there's an invisible airplane there.

Not sure what there is to debunk.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Okay. I see photos with arrows added with MS Paint. You claim there's an invisible airplane there.

Not sure what there is to debunk.
Click to expand...

That the evil government has in fact developed a process to make air planes become invisible and then destroy buildings with CD killing masses so that IRAQ can be "invaded" and conquered. :rolleyes:
 
Also, I quickly downloaded that image with the faint clouds that are "exactly the same size and shape, with the same features" as the airliner depicted. I moved the airliner to a different layer and reduced opacity and superimposed it over the super-faint cloud. They look nothing alike. Not the same size/shape, tail section is entirely different, and as for features, I see a blurry photo of very thin clouds. Not sure what features you're talking about. (Edit though I shouldn't have to poin this out - saying it's the same size as the airliner photography that's been deliberately scaled to be the same size as the cloud is... meaningless).

Also, again, you seem to be arguing that the thin vaguely plane-shaped cloud is in fact an airplane, presumably with some sort of invisibility technology since it looks just like the surrounding clouds. "No plane that small has a cloaking device" is the most serious answer the photo deserves. Especially considering the 3000 lives that were lost that day. For what? For edgy people to sit online and draw pictures in MS Paint to accuse the victims of being actors, the firefighters of being in on it, and experts of covering up mass murders? Shameful.

Edit2: might as well show the image, or the CTers will start hopping up and down and accusing me of making stuff up and not showing my work.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Also, I quickly downloaded that image with the faint clouds that are "exactly the same size and shape, with the same features" as the airliner depicted. I moved the airliner to a different layer and reduced opacity and superimposed it over the super-faint cloud. They look nothing alike. Not the same size/shape, tail section is entirely different, and as for features, I see a blurry photo of very thin clouds. Not sure what features you're talking about. (Edit though I shouldn't have to poin this out - saying it's the same size as the airliner photography that's been deliberately scaled to be the same size as the cloud is... meaningless).

Also, again, you seem to be arguing that the thin vaguely plane-shaped cloud is in fact an airplane, presumably with some sort of invisibility technology since it looks just like the surrounding clouds. "No plane that small has a cloaking device" is the most serious answer the photo deserves. Especially considering the 3000 lives that were lost that day. For what? For edgy people to sit online and draw pictures in MS Paint to accuse the victims of being actors, the firefighters of being in on it, and experts of covering up mass murders? Shameful.
Click to expand...

That is what you get when you take an image and start adjusting the different parameters in some image editing software. It appears that ruby does not understand the compression algorithms of software and what results can occur.
Edit2: might as well show the image, or the CTers will start hopping up and down and accusing me of making stuff up and not showing my work.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_176055f6dfaf8bdf80.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

But then maybe ruby does understand. :jaw-dropp
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Also, I quickly downloaded that image with the faint clouds that are "exactly the same size and shape, with the same features" as the airliner depicted. I moved the airliner to a different layer and reduced opacity and superimposed it over the super-faint cloud. They look nothing alike. Not the same size/shape, tail section is entirely different, and as for features, I see a blurry photo of very thin clouds. Not sure what features you're talking about. (Edit though I shouldn't have to poin this out - saying it's the same size as the airliner photography that's been deliberately scaled to be the same size as the cloud is... meaningless).

Also, again, you seem to be arguing that the thin vaguely plane-shaped cloud is in fact an airplane, presumably with some sort of invisibility technology since it looks just like the surrounding clouds. "No plane that small has a cloaking device" is the most serious answer the photo deserves. Especially considering the 3000 lives that were lost that day. For what? For edgy people to sit online and draw pictures in MS Paint to accuse the victims of being actors, the firefighters of being in on it, and experts of covering up mass murders? Shameful.

Edit2: might as well show the image, or the CTers will start hopping up and down and accusing me of making stuff up and not showing my work.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_176055f6dfaf8bdf80.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

As I pointed out earlier, the stall speed, the speed it has to maintain and still be a plane, is 160 MPH. Those frames are a full second apart. At stall speed, it's 243.7 feet travelled. In those photos, it's a matter of pixels. A plane, visible or not, couldn't travel that short of a distance in that time and still be flying. It can't travel that slow.
 
Leftus said:
As I pointed out earlier, the stall speed, the speed it has to maintain and still be a plane, is 160 MPH. Those frames are a full second apart. At stall speed, it's 243.7 feet travelled. In those photos, it's a matter of pixels. A plane, visible or not, couldn't travel that short of a distance in that time and still be flying. It can't travel that slow.
Click to expand...
Yes, I found that really weird, too.

By the way, for fairness' sake, I had to up the contrast of the original image to make the "plane" in the cloud stand out more. It was nearly invisible against the sky compared to that photo of an actual airliner. I meant to superimpose the photo directly on top of the cloud, but that just ended up blotting out the cloud entirely.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Yes, I found that really weird, too.

By the way, for fairness' sake, I had to up the contrast of the original image to make the "plane" in the cloud stand out more. It was nearly invisible against the sky compared to that photo of an actual airliner. I meant to superimpose the photo directly on top of the cloud, but that just ended up blotting out the cloud entirely.
Click to expand...

And that is what ruby does to the image to present her "evidence". ;)
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Also, again, you seem to be arguing that the thin vaguely plane-shaped cloud is in fact an airplane, presumably with some sort of invisibility technology since it looks just like the surrounding clouds. "No plane that small has a cloaking device" is the most serious answer the photo deserves. Especially considering the 3000 lives that were lost that day. For what? For edgy people to sit online and draw pictures in MS Paint to accuse the victims of being actors, the firefighters of being in on it, and experts of covering up mass murders? Shameful.
Click to expand...

You have not read any of my original post (on LetsRollForums) where I have stated that this looks like a watermark image, and I suggest that it could have been a whistleblower's clue, left in the image in this all-but invisible form. The FBI after all, did have this footage in their possession for several years.
I have never suggested there was any "cloaking technology" involved. That is your invention, nothing to do with me.
I first noticed this phenomenon when watching the looped Gatecam footage, unedited, and the successive images were very obvious to me.
It was only after seeing the same shape moving from right to left, that I started to enhance the individual frames.
You are just guessing and speculating here, and making crazy evaluations of my character with your "Shameful" comment. You are way off base.

I illustrate what I write about, for the benefit of others like yourself who have not spent the many hours of study that I have. If i just wrote without accompanying images, you would of course complain about that.

I have never "accused the firefighters of being in on it". Where did you get this fanciful notion?

Why would you say that I "accuse the victims of being actors"?

My purpose is basically to vindicate the integrity of one victim in particular, LLOYDE ENGLAND the taxi driver, whose windshield and cab interior was smashed by a pole as the plane flew across him. Lloyde has been mercilessly criticised and condemned by all sides for 19 years now, especially thanks to the shoddy work done in his case by Citizen Investigation Team. They are the ones who created this mess by claiming that Lloyde was an accomplice in the Pentagon crime.

I, almost the only person on this planet it seems, take the unpopular stance that Lloyde told the truth and nothing but the truth AS HE KNEW IT, while admitting that there were many things he could not explain about that day. Strange things happened to him, but that is no reason to accuse him of being old (he was the same age as Rumsfeld, and nobody complained that he was too old to be 2IC of the country) and forgetful and confused and senile. It is certainly not a reason to accuse him of lying, or of being actively involved in a treasonous plot of any kind.

I do this not just to support the true story told by Lloyde England, but because of the many victims who died that day, and as a corollary to that day, and also for the millions of sufferers on foreign soils in the succeeding years.

As for "experts covering up mass murders" ... well this has always happened throughout history which should not be news to anyone. That is the nature of war.

The fact that Donald Rumsfeld's bodyguard was actively involved in transporting Lloyde England to the overpass bridge and guarding him during the photo session which deceived the world into believing the lie that the plane flew diagonally across the bridge and hit 5 lightpoles, one of which speared Lloyde England's cab in that location
... and that this happened within about 15 minutes of the explosion,
with this bodyguard first having had to walk about 600 metres from Rumsfeld's office on the eastern side of the Pentagon, after being told about the impact,
and then folliwed his boss around the lawn for a few minutes
... and that all this is recorded on numerous videos and photos
... well this is just undeniable proof of involvement of the highest levels of government in the planning and execution of the Pentagon event, which necessarily proves that the entire event was staged.

The truth is that Lloyde England did not lie, and that he was indeed 400 yards north of the bridge on Route 27 when a pole smashed through his windshield, as he consistently maintained. Several videos and photos prove that he was not on the bridge until 18 minutes after the explosion, and that his cab was moved from the place where it was impaled, to the bridge, at 6 minutes after the explosion.

The unanimous testimony of many witnesses, far more than Craig and Aldo ever interviewed, is that the plane flew on the North-of-Citgo flightpath. Lloyde England is one of those witnesses, and video of him and his cab beside the cemetery retaining wall at 9:41 a.m. is conclusive evidence that Arab hijackers did not fly that plane into the Pentagon.

It is of course understandable that there should be such an outcry against this evidence, but derision and mockery is no substitute for rational discussion and explanation of how a plane that was, according to all the witnesses, flying hundreds of yards north of the bridge, and high enough to miss the tree-topped cemetery bank and overhead sign opposite the heliport, could possibly have knocked a lightpole from the bridge into Lloyde England's cab.

Of course from this location and height, nor can it possibly have hit the ground floor of the Pentagon half a second after crossing Route 27.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom