Loose Change - Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmm. Great. I'll probably have lost interest by the time I get approved.

I've been looking at all this pod/missile/flash stuff (OK, not all) and wondering what exactly is the problem. They show lots of pictures that appear to have a "pod" of some kind, but it looks remarkably identical to the shape of the engine and is located in a place that (I think) would either not fit under the plane when it was on the runway, or at least would interfere with the landing gear.
In some of the views, it seems to me it could be a combination of reflected sunlight and shadow from an engine, but in others that doesn't seem to be possible.
I've been reading most of the threads here over the last few months, posting very occasionally. But, I seem to have missed the discussion of the "pod" etc. Does anyone have a link to where this was discussed? Was there an answer to the cause of the famous *Flash*?
 
Of course, this is all based on me having an "open mind". The whole idea seems like total lunacy, but I'm still curious about the pictures.
 
Hmmm, as usual, I've eventually turned up information on my own about the pod - actually just an odd structure to the airplane where the wing attaches. Lots of photos (more clear than 9/11 ones) show it.

So, that's cleared up. Now I'm looking for info on the flash...
 
I seem to be turning this thread into my own monologue. Sorry.
Was it going anywhere?

Is it really a bad sign that I'm talking to myself so much here?
 
Heh...

The "flash" could have a lot of explanations... one is that an aircraft is main aluminium, and when it hits a solid object and high speed the force of compression at that impact vapourises the alimunium into aluminium oxide, accompanied by a bright flash of light.

A second less exciting explanation is it's simply a change in the reflective properties of the building's windows and aluminium cladding as they disintegrate under the force of the impact.

The "flash" is really nothing more than a very tiny very localised point of brighter light. Certainly any sort of explosion would be expected to be much brighter/larger.

-Andrew
 
tacodaemon said:
Oh, you guys will like this. You know how Webfairy and Gerard think that that out-of-focus, compression-artifacted still from the Jules Naudet video shows a "blob" (or, as Webfairy calls it, a "Whatzit") flying toward the North Tower? Well, some other woo-woo -- who is on a CIA drug-running conspiracy list with Webfairy -- took the still, blew it up big, sent it through a bunch of edge-detecting Photoshop filters, and spotted a bunch of evil faces in it that are the signature of the Reptoid aliens who are probably really at fault.
Click to expand...
I love this line:
next is the photo enlarged, solarized & invert with finding edges, with expanding the color range....red to blue end.....to gain as much data as possible
Click to expand...
Is this guy for real?
 
chipmunk stew said:
I love this line:
Is this guy for real?[/SIZE]
Click to expand...


It's not their fault. They have watched years and years of police dramas and spy films in which people "enhance" video. No one has told them that video shows you everything it has to offer on first go. You can't "enhance" it to get more out of it.

-Andrew

EDT: :eek: I just looked at that site... surely the person who made it is joking right? I mean... "man with a military style haircut"???
 
Last edited:
I've just been going through this guy's exhaustive analysis of the Pentagon crash site and explanations of how everything has been faked. I especially like his idea that it is not incompetent conspirators that make these "obvious" photoshop mistakes, but rather must be "whistleblowers" bravely risking their lives by leaving red flags for us all to catch. This explains why the conspirators are smart enough to pull it all off, but dumb enough to be caught by a bunch of googlers.

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm

The fact that he also contests JFK and the moon landing are surely indications that he does not understand what perspective does to a photo.
Mostly all of his analysis boils down to using pictures from different people taken of the same thing from different angles/locations and finding inconsistencies. Of course, some things are obviously more visible from some locations than others, but he doesn't quite mention that. If you've read much about the lunar-lunatics analysis of moon landing photos, this will all be strangely familiar...
 
tacodaemon said:
Oh, you guys will like this. You know how Webfairy and Gerard think that that out-of-focus, compression-artifacted still from the Jules Naudet video shows a "blob" (or, as Webfairy calls it, a "Whatzit") flying toward the North Tower? Well, some other woo-woo -- who is on a CIA drug-running conspiracy list with Webfairy -- took the still, blew it up big, sent it through a bunch of edge-detecting Photoshop filters, and spotted a bunch of evil faces in it that are the signature of the Reptoid aliens who are probably really at fault.
Click to expand...

Ugh. This guy's psychotic.
 
Let me stress that the planes/missiles are optional. They could have fitted some sort of "plane magnet" in WTC1 and WTC2 as well, thus ensuring the exact point of impact, however no planes would have been the easiest plan as far as success rate goes and there is photographic evidence to suggest that the planes have been added to the pictures electronically and there are plenty of people here who follow the no planes option as a result.
Click to expand...

Plane. Magnets. Yeah.
 
Erm someone tell me...

How well does aluminium respond to magnets?

-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
It's not their fault. They have watched years and years of police dramas and spy films in which people "enhance" video. No one has told them that video shows you everything it has to offer on first go. You can't "enhance" it to get more out of it.

-Andrew

EDT: :eek: I just looked at that site... surely the person who made it is joking right? I mean... "man with a military style haircut"???
Click to expand...
This stupid device (always carried out by some wise-cracking kid with gel'd hair) completely kills movies and shows for me. It ruined both CSI and 24. The worst example, though, and I forget the movie, was when the still capture was not only "enhanced", but the sooper seekrit technology the Gubmint was using actually allowed them to ROTATE AROUND THE OBJECT TO GET A CLEARER VIEW.
 
chipmunk stew said:
This stupid device (always carried out by some wise-cracking kid with gel'd hair) completely kills movies and shows for me. It ruined both CSI and 24. The worst example, though, and I forget the movie, was when the still capture was not only "enhanced", but the sooper seekrit technology the Gubmint was using actually allowed them to ROTATE AROUND THE OBJECT TO GET A CLEARER VIEW.
Click to expand...


Yeah that ruined "Enemy of the State" as well. MOST of that movie's technology was nicely plausible, but ffs the "image enhancement" scene where they discover the bag changed shape... Oh that made me change the channel.
 
Harlequin said:
I've just been going through this guy's exhaustive analysis of the Pentagon crash site and explanations of how everything has been faked. I especially like his idea that it is not incompetent conspirators that make these "obvious" photoshop mistakes, but rather must be "whistleblowers" bravely risking their lives by leaving red flags for us all to catch. This explains why the conspirators are smart enough to pull it all off, but dumb enough to be caught by a bunch of googlers.
Click to expand...

Ugh. At least REAL investigators have the nerve to tell you when something's speculation or when they simply don't know. CTers are always sure, and EVERY bit of data can be fitted in their "theory", no matter what.
 
So. So. Lame.

It probably originated from older shows or whatever where they have LIVE CAMERAS and could remotely zoom them into a particular subject.

Some foooooool just decided you could do it with recorded footage too...

As for the rotate thing...

BLUGH.

-Andrew
 
fowlsound said:
Yeah that ruined "Enemy of the State" as well. MOST of that movie's technology was nicely plausible, but ffs the "image enhancement" scene where they discover the bag changed shape... Oh that made me change the channel.
Click to expand...

Serves to show that most hollywood writers have no idea how things work.

Oh well... at least it's entertaining.
 
chipmunk stew said:
This stupid device (always carried out by some wise-cracking kid with gel'd hair) completely kills movies and shows for me. It ruined both CSI and 24. The worst example, though, and I forget the movie, was when the still capture was not only "enhanced", but the sooper seekrit technology the Gubmint was using actually allowed them to ROTATE AROUND THE OBJECT TO GET A CLEARER VIEW.
Click to expand...

I'm THAT kid :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom