FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

September Clues - Busted!
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:21 am    Post subject: September Clues - Busted! Reply with quote

September Clues - Busted!

A video by the author of "WTC7 - This is an Orange", Anthony Lawson.

Exposing the deception, insidious innuendo, misdirection and lies in the “September Clues” series of videos, which many scholars and others have mistaken for the truth about some of the events that happened on that terrible day: September 11, 2001.

Perhaps this video will make them realise that they have been deliberately mislead.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550

Note: The streaming quality is not great, but the download MPEG-4 is pretty good, given the file size limitations on Google.

Anthony

_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

we've been discussing "september clues" in the controversies section recently. feel free to join in....

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11608
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11695
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11664
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shouldnt this post be moved to controversies ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent work Anthony.
Your comprehensive exposure of September Clues' fraud comes across loud and clear.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:14 am    Post subject: Delusion and Vanity Redux Reply with quote

Anthony Lawson wrote:
September Clues - Busted!

A video by the author of "WTC7 - This is an Orange", Anthony Lawson.

Exposing the deception, insidious innuendo, misdirection and lies in the “September Clues” series of videos, which many scholars and others have mistaken for the truth about some of the events that happened on that terrible day: September 11, 2001.

Perhaps this video will make them realise that they have been deliberately mislead.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550

Note: The streaming quality is not great, but the download MPEG-4 is pretty good, given the file size limitations on Google.

Anthony


Oh dear Anthony - you appear to have visited Gotterdamerung on a certain site who have unwisely invested rather a lot emotionally in September Clues' veracity.
I think I detected more than a hint of the elegaic.

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=1896&st=15

As the bold Oscar once put it, "One must have a heart of stone to read it without laughing".

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=1913&st=0

killtown wrote:
Man, that was PAINFUL! 28min of having to hear some condescending, arrogant tone like their walking with their nose up in the air Brit's voice. Love all his assumptions when trying to explain "what really happened".


Desperate! The guy is badly badly pwned and this is all he can try

Love the belief system defense stuff too:


dragon ninja wrote:
The moment that "sceptic" claimed that the nose out shot was dried old dust. I axed the video, this guy is either an Insane sheep or a shill. Dust in the shape of a plane?


First excuse this poor indoctrinated mind could find, it shut itself down!

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great work, Anthony. Essential viewing.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Roadrunner
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 200

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, 'essential viewing' ????!!!! The 'nose out' frames on this new video are the poorest quality anyone has ever seen. Why ? The fade to black is laughably dealt with. So the media corporations all decided to switch camera shots at the exact moment of the event at the South Tower ? Hahahahaha ! And the 17 second co-ordination of broadcasts is not even dealt with. It's pathetic. It's more than that. It's silly.

That video proves some people are really getting rattled by NPT. The best thing that's happened to support NPT since 'September Clues'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can I see the source of your "nose not out" video?
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roadrunner wrote:
Wow, 'essential viewing' ????!!!! The 'nose out' frames on this new video are the poorest quality anyone has ever seen. Why ? The fade to black is laughably dealt with. So the media corporations all decided to switch camera shots at the exact moment of the event at the South Tower ? Hahahahaha ! And the 17 second co-ordination of broadcasts is not even dealt with. It's pathetic. It's more than that. It's silly.

That video proves some people are really getting rattled by NPT. The best thing that's happened to support NPT since 'September Clues'.


Just to pick one point, on the 'nose-out' shot, are you happy with a 'perfect match' that has used anti-alising to smooth things out?

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Roadrunner
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 200

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogsmilk,

I am happy the 'nose out' shot so closely resembles the nose of the plane (or 'plane') that seems to have approached the tower that it's the best candidate of anything in the entire video that can be compared to the supposed plane nose itself. In fact, the very frame before the 'nose out' we both see a plane nose (or 'plane' nose). Don't we ? With the 'plane' travelling hundreds of miles an hour, supposedly ? Which sort of makes us wonder if the frame afterward the film is also showing a plane nose ? I mean, you can surely see the logical basis for the query ? I concede that no 'perfect match' exists. But a remarkable likeness, a remarkable similarity, is evident. Yes ?

Now, can I ask you a single question ? Do you agree the 'nose out' shown as stills in this new 'Orange' film are the poorest images you've yet seen of this issue ? They're so poor they do nothing to persuade anyone that the maker of this film wants to deal with this valid subject honestly. They're so poor that any honest researcher must admit they're not worthy of settling, fairly, either side of this debate.

Where accuracy and honesty is most required this new film on this subject of the 'nose out' delivers neither.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've seen most if not all of the 'nose out' shots and I never thought it looked like the nose of the plane. Indeed, if it were an accident of fakery, the nose of the plane miraculously exiting undamaged, it would look exactly like the plane, cockpit and all. I'm sorry, but this does not look like the nose of the plane to me.



though we can see something flying off here that has the same kind of shape. Total speculation, but no different from saying it's the nose of the plane. And I expect that photo is allegedly faked too.


However, Anthony is dealing with a specific claim - that of the 'perfect match' - and I think he does a pretty good job of showing that it isn't.

I was also slightly confused by your statement that all the live broadcasts just happened to be changing shot - are you sure they all were?

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roadrunner wrote:
Dogsmilk,

I am happy the 'nose out' shot so closely resembles the nose of the plane (or 'plane') that seems to have approached the tower that it's the best candidate of anything in the entire video that can be compared to the supposed plane nose itself. .


And that is why you are wasting your time promoting fraud across the internet: a basic lack of relevant skills, leading to you becoming a namipulated dupe

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogsmilk wrote:
Just to pick one point, on the 'nose-out' shot, are you happy with a 'perfect match' that has used anti-alising to smooth things out?


Precisely.
As artificially enhanced as Pamela Anderson.
And just as authentic.

It seems that's what these "researchers" prefer.
Siliconised truth.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roadrunner
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 200

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. In its final moments a plane (supposedly) approaches South Tower WTC at a speed estimated as being between 550 and 600 miles an hour.

2. Most of its final moments are (supposedly) caught on film

3. Video film captures (at the rate of around 30 frames per second) the approach of this plane

4. In the final moment before the plane hits the tower we can see the nose of this (supposed) plane.

5. Less than 1/30th of a second after the nose is last caught on film a shape (agreed by everyone to be remarkably like that of the nose of the plane) appears from the other side of the tower.

6. Less than 1/30th of a second after the agreed nose of a plane is seen the shape that emerges from the other side of the tower is seen to be in the very position where the nose of a plane would be had there been no collision.


CONCLUSION 1

There are therefore 3 logical grounds for assuming this object, the 'nose out', IS, for research purposes, the nose of the plane.

1. It is the right general size
2. It is in the right place
3. It appears at the time when a real nose would appear

Other films of this event exist, as shown above. But they look even less like a cloud of dust than the one we are discussing.

Several commentators on 9/11/2001 spoke of the plane going thru the building themselves. Again confirming the logical grounds above.

CONCLUSION 2

To suppose that the first visual evidence on this footage of a plane being destroyed in collision with this tower consists of a 'nose out' at the place, time and general apprearance of nose is absurd, since the plastic nose of a commercial plane would not, could not, have survived its supposed travel thru the mighty steelwork and concrete of that huge tower. So the very existence of a 'nose out' in such a location, at such a time, in precisely that location, is preposterous, even if a real plane did hit that tower.

CONCLUSION 3

The whole 'plane' argument is debunked. Beyond reasonable doubt this 'nose out' is the product of an overlay error caused by those who manipulated broacast material on 9/11/2001.

The makers of the 'Orange' film did themselves and their cause no good by presenting viewers with images of the 'nose out' which are unanimously agreed to be the poorest in visual quality of any yet seen on this particular subject. This new film proves that in November 2007 material of poorer visual quality than that already available from many sources is now being used, so as to falsely and inaccurately 'prove' the argument of the film maker. We can only regret that such low grade arguments are being used. If these are now the standards being used for these kinds of debate we can only hope that Agent Orange is no more invited to muddy the waters on such serious matters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any debris would burst out of the building at roughly the same time and place as the nose would appear. Your assumption is just that - an assumption.
If it were the actual nose, it would not be the same general size, it would be exactly the same size and shape. Which SeptClues deceptively tries to claim it is. Are you happy with Shack's deceptive tactics?

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Roadrunner
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 200

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am happy the two planes supposedly involved are now agreed by the airline and by the aviation authority not to have flown that day. Nor were they scheduled to fly. Seems to me that 9/11 researchers have to acept these facts, even those who don't like them. Unless they have evidence to the contrary, that is. In which case please submit it to these two bodies.

Case Closed.

The two commercial flights never existed. They did not board. Nor did they fly on 9/11/2001 to the Twin Towers of the WTC. Get it ? I mean, how stupid are you willing to get on this issue ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roadrunner wrote:
I am happy the two planes supposedly involved are now agreed by the airline and by the aviation authority not to have flown that day. Nor were they scheduled to fly. Seems to me that 9/11 researchers have to acept these facts, even those who don't like them. Unless they have evidence to the contrary, that is. In which case please submit it to these two bodies.

Case Closed.

The two commercial flights never existed. They did not board. Nor did they fly on 9/11/2001 to the Twin Towers of the WTC. Get it ? I mean, how stupid are you willing to get on this issue ?


Not as stupid as you

Your the guy who got conned over 9/11 not once but twice after all

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roadrunner
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 200

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This forum is supposedly a truth forum. The truth is now established that the airline and the aviation authority say these two flights were not scheduled for that day. They also say they never took off. There is today nobody at these airports - not a single person - who said they took off.

If you want to ignore multiple requests for evidence to the contrary, then ignore them. But I won't waste my time with people who choose to be foolish. Nor would anyone else. Time to realise your theory is busted on the grounds that it has not a shred of evidence in its support.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But I won't waste my time with people who choose to be foolish.


Your on your second incarnation Indub: who are you kidding? Yourself?

Well, thats what we've been trying to show you!

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roadrunner
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 200

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your'e busted John White. The airline says so. So does the aviation authority. The two commercial flights never happened on 9/11/2001.

If you have any evidence to show otherwise let's see it. Coz it just gets a lot tougher from now on.

Will you finally abandon belief in these two flights hitting the Twin Towers ?
Flights which, we now see, never existed and were never scheduled.

Busted. Big time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roadrunner wrote:
Your'e busted John White. The airline says so. So does the aviation authority. The two commercial flights never happened on 9/11/2001.

If you have any evidence to show otherwise let's see it. Coz it just gets a lot tougher from now on.

Will you finally abandon belief in these two flights hitting the Twin Towers ?
Flights which, we now see, never existed and were never scheduled.

Busted. Big time.


Surely only a fanatic and deluded no planer could be naive enough to expect anyone to believe that a wikipedia edit proves an event witnessed by thousands and broadcast on several channels live to millions didn't happen.
It would appear so.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roadrunner
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 200

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, it's that those who believe these flights happened and who believe they were scheduled on that day cannot provide a shred of evidence. That there is not, in fact, a shred of evidence these planes hit the Twin Towers.

Unless you provide some you are simply floundering, again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So Chek, what efforts have you made to disprove the authenticity of the BTS data or the Wiki edit ?

Or, alternatively:

Quote:
Surely only a fanatic and deluded planetagonist could be naive enough to expect anyone to believe that a wikipedia edit proves an alleged event allegedly witnessed by thousands and broadcast on several channels, not quite live to millions did happen.

It would appear so.


Getting it now ?

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:41 am    Post subject: Sorry I'm late Reply with quote

Sorry I’m Late

I checked ‘Watch this topic’ when I opened this thread, but, apparently, it didn’t register, so I’ve been over on the thread which ‘gruts’ kindly directed me to. However, it is heartening to see some of my old adversaries supporting my efforts on the video fakery issue. Thank you for your help holding the fort, John and Dogsmilk.

I note that Roadrunner is just as unpleasant here, as he is on the other site. Here’s an example and my reply:

Accused of Being a Charlatan

Roadrunner wrote:
Dear Anthony Lawson,

The problem with people like you is that you pose as being grounded in the laws of science but have neither the knowledge nor even the basic honesty that it required to lecture us on anything. You are a charlatan.

Rule No. 1 - Be Accountable for what you write

Rule No. 2 - Don't use images that are of poorer quality than those already widely available

Rule No. 3 - Know your subject

In all three cases you fail.

If you wish to debate/discuss the contents of your 'Orange' film (which fails completely in tackling the main issues of media fakery on 9/11/2001) I will be happy to do so with you at any time. Ideally on radio, live.

How about it ?


I do not ‘pose’ as anything. I am able to observe what is available as evidence, I have a reasonable knowledge of science, but, as a former director and film editor, I also have some knowledge of visual manipulation. By the way, calling people names, is frowned upon on this site. I suggest you withdraw the accusation of my being a charlatan, which means, if you don’t actually know: a person falsely claiming a special knowledge or skill.

Back up what you say; reveal where I claim a special knowledge which I do not posses, or withdraw. Then note the following, and answer the questions, if you are able to:

1, In what way do you believe I am ‘not accountable’. I give my real name on this site, and my real name and e-mail address on the video. What is your real name and e-mail address? Are you ‘accountable’ for what you write under the name of “Roadrunner”?

2 "September Clues" was based on poor quality video, but, where possible, when refuting the lies, I used the best quality video available. This is attested to by my thanks to Xenomorph911, at the end of the video. When uploading to Google, I was obliged to use a less-than-perfect render of the time line, because of video file size restrictions. However, knowing that this would be the case, in several instances I mention what can be seen on better quality videos, and in one, in particular, I suggest that if I am not believed (about the plane’s appearance in the wide shot from Fox 5’s helicopter) that a good quality NTSC copy be downloaded, and I also pointed out where the frames of the plane could be seen. Tell me: What more could I have done? Sent out CDs?

3. I appear to know the subject a lot better than you do, unless you wanted me to pick out and debunk all the other stupid “evidence” such as the Naudet Brothers’ suspicious edit, on the second strike, which could have been an inadvertent camera stop, for example.

If you knew the slightest thing about debating, you would know that attempting to prove a negative is extremely difficult, but attempting to disprove someone else’s assumption, where absolutely no evidence is given in support of it, is impossible.

Before I would consider debating something, on radio, or anywhere else, with a person with an aggressive attitude like yours—a name-caller without a cause—I would like to know exactly where you consider I have failed ‘completely in tackling the main issues of media fakery on 9/11/2001’. I thought that my graphic plane, disappearing into a slot in Tower Two, which showed that the main thrust of Shack’s theory—his nose-in, nose-out sequence—was absolute nonsense, came pretty close to tackling the ‘main issue.’ But what does a charlatan know about such things?

End of post

Now for an quick update.

Roadrunner wrote:
Your'e busted John White. The airline says so. So does the aviation authority. The two commercial flights never happened on 9/11/2001.

If you have any evidence to show otherwise let's see it. Coz it just gets a lot tougher from now on.

Will you finally abandon belief in these two flights hitting the Twin Towers ?
Flights which, we now see, never existed and were never scheduled.

Busted. Big time.


I cannot recall anyone mentioning, in these exchanges, the flight numbers allegedly attached to the planes in question. I certainly didn’t, in my video, because I am reasonably certain that the planes were ‘swopped’ or were always whatever planes were thought to be United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11, by the air-traffic controllers. Remember that their ID radar transponders were switched off, quite early. Therefore, abandoning belief in UA 175 and AA 11 hitting the Towers does not mean that planes did not fly into the towers.

You really are an easy target, Roadrunner. Why don’t you get your brain in gear, before letting your fingers do the talking?

When you’ve done so, tell us all: How did the plane overlays get onto all of the private videos? Did CNN, NBC, ABC et al get together and provide this service? Was there an 800 number to call? Did it work like this?

Brrr, Brrr: “You’ve reached Consolidated Plane Overlays, Inc. For North Tower impact press 1... For South Tower impact press 2.

And have you ever seen a shot of one of the Towers exploding without a plane? Don’t fudge, now, and start quoting someone else or yelling “Shill!”

Answer the questions!

_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey roadrunner - as you're such a crusading truthseeker, perhaps you could give me a truthful answer to the following question.

have you ever been banned from this forum?

btw - have you worked out the difference between a missile and a helicopter yet?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Killtown wrote:
Can I see the source of your "nose not out" video?

hey champ - do you know how we can get hold of simon shack's pixel study that's supposedly available for "peer review"?

you know, the one that he claims is an exact precision match - when anyone with half-decent eyesight can see that it isn't (except you and your socks - apparently)....

as simon is so elusive perhaps you could contact him on our behalf with a request to make this "pixel study" publically available.

whaddya say champ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And Roadrunner - when you've finished trying to divert attention on to matters you already started a whole thread about, can you please given your opinion on this 'perfect match' business. Thanks.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Roadrunner
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 200

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let the video recorded broacasts (held on video tape and recorded by many people) stand, this together with material released by the broadcaster on DVD and other formats. This all contains far more detailed images of the 'nose-out' than Salter/Lawson uses - AS YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL.

Now stop wasting everyone's time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

so please could you show us these more detailed images?

especially one that actually is a precision match - because all the ones I've seen are anything but....

and do you know where we can get hold of simon shack's pixel study which is apparently available for peer review? as you're into public accountability maybe you could persuade him to release it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group