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 

Image Impossible: The Evidance
Goto page 1, 2, 3  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
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


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

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:04 pm    Post subject: Image Impossible: The Evidance Reply with quote

Image Impossible



Why the "No Planes CNN trickery" theory,
based on this picture,
Can't Fly


----------------------------------------

Hello All

As you probably know, recently I declared that Fred, "No Planes" documentary maker and member of www.9/11researchers.com, has used a fake image in a recent film in his latest effort to prove his theory that all the CNN footage of the second plane impact had been itself, faked: so in other words, I've stated my view that a fake image has been used to try and prove other footage fake

These seems to have caused some fuss and bother! And to be honest, I'm a little suprised that more people havnt also seen what I am going to lay out for you in the following images and paragraphs (though some have: nice one comrades!). I promise you, your going to be kicking yourself!

To start with, lets lay some ground work

This is the image, taken from fred's documentary, that has started this ball rolling

Quote:
source video provided by Madge B

http://conspicuousplot.blogspot.com/2007/04/911fake-footage-definitive -proof-for.html


Here is fred/bsregistrations comparison image, wrongly labeled as live video when it is in fact a still, which this latest video claims shows a mis-match in the location of the damage





As you can see, there is a dramatic mis-match between the two damage locations when comparing the imposed CNN shot (fireball at top of shot) and the battery park photo still

Now Fred has very confidently put his reputation on the line declaring that this mis-match proves the CNN footage is fake: but does it? Thats what we are going to find out

I'd like to set a context so we know what we are discussing

Here are some other shots showing the twin towers in relation to battery park (from a more happy day than september 11th 2001)

In particualr, I'd like to invite you to consider the scale of the towers against the surrounding city. Battery park is on the right of the first shot



And in front of us from this shot



Now this is important, in that it shows the sheer power and size of the towers as they loom over manhatten. This is what alerted me to the battery park still straight away

------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
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 Apr 28, 2007 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So how to procede?

Well the answer is to consider known values

What do i mean by this? Well the towers have a known width, a known height, the impact occured in a known location. Whilst at first this may seem dificult to relate between images, it is in fact relatively straight forward to do so, especially when images are taken from the considerable distance away of battery park, where although there may be some difference in location between the CNN shot and the still shot, there is negligible impact on the view of the towers themselves.

If we know the width of the tower and how far down the tower the impact occured, we can express these values as a ratio: and the same for the overall size of the towers width against height. All we then need to do is measure the pixels along the width of any image of the tower, mulitply by the ratio, and we have a sure calculation of where the impact should be, and the relative size of the tower in that image

Heres some raw numbers for known values about WTC2:

Quote:
WTC2 Height: 1362 feet (NISTNCSTAR1-1 page xxxvi)

width: 207ft (NISTNCSTAR1-1 page

Damage: floors 78 - 83 (NIST 6McAllister page 34).

Concourse to floor 8.............. 104 ft
floors 9 - 39 (31x12)...............372 ft
floors 40 - 45...........................66 ft
floors 46 - 73 (28x12)..............336 ft
floors 74 - 77 ...........................54 ft

total........................................932 ft from ground to lower impact zone
to floor 83 ( + 74 ft zone)....... 1006 ft from ground to upper impact zone

r: upper impact zone ..............356 ft from top of building
lower impact zone...............430 ft ------ " ---------


The numbers which are going to be important are:

Width of tower: 207ft
Height of tower 1362ft

Impact zone: 356 ft to 430 ft from top of tower

Lets find the ratio's I'm going to use to examine the images:

height to width 1362/207 = 6.57 thats a 1:6.6 ratio

averaging between the upper and lower areas of damage gives us a distance of 393 ft from the top of the tower that HAS to be smack in the middle of the damage zone

So to find the ratio for the impact zone from the top, its 393/207 = 1:1.86 ratio

We dont need to be too accurate with our calculations here considering the vast distance between the two impact zones that Fred is claiming in his attempt to prove the CNN footage fake, so lets tidy up the ratios a little

Ratio for width of tower against height of tower= 1:7

Ratio for width of tower to location of imact zone = 1:2

So if I take the width of the tower in pixles, mulitply by the ratio 1:7 and count down, I find the height of the tower

If I take the width of the tower in pixles, multiply by the ratio 1:2 and count down, I find the location of the impact

Simple enough, isnt it? As we will see, shame fred didnt think of it before making his extraordinary claims

-----------------------------------------------------

I'm going to next look at the CNN footage and applying the ratio's to it



Here's a nice high definition capture of the plane almost at the point of impact, should serve nicely

A simple line drawn along the axis of the plane nose to tail shows us its direction of travel (green) Marking the width of the tower, I find its 101 pixels... count down 200 finds the middle of the impact zone... white "X" marks the spot: so so far, CNN footage is holding up just fine



Now I want to establish the overall size of the tower in order to facilitate further comparison. So i extend the line of the side of the tower 700 pixels (1:7 ratio), and square it off as a rectangle



I now can compare this image to Fred's work directly

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World


Last edited by John White on Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:49 am; edited 1 time in total
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 Apr 28, 2007 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Next, Im going to compare to fred's shot showing the CNN impact that he has matched to the foreward buildings. The quality is a little rough as i have expanded the original image so the towers width in pixels is matching my tower extrapolated from the high res image. I've done this using irfranview with "preserve aspect ratio" ticked. In my orignal image, the towers width is 67 pixels, I want to match it to 100 pixels, so I divide the original 431 pixels total width by 67, mulitply by 100 and resize to 643 pixels. Now I can compare the images directly. I place my tower over Fred's image and match up the impact points:




Well how about that! Impact matches up nicely, tower sits in a good position relative to the rest of the scene, not bad at all! Given that we have extrapolated from known values about the WTC and totally undisputed facts about where the damage to WTC 2 occured, we can have great confidence that the CNN footage is looking genuine

But what happens when I line up to the battery park image?



Oh dear! The tower in the park image has its base below sea level!

Lets put it all together:



End Result:

There's simply not enough tower in the battery park image:

The point of damage is FAR too Low

Only possible conclusion: The image is a FAKE


-------------------------------------------

Aftermath:

When I first saw the battery park image in Fred's video, my immediate response was to call what I saw: and I have been vindicated with that call: but we are left with some complexities

After he was challenged, Fred produced his source for the image, the "big foto" site Gallery:

http://www.bigfoto.com/sites/galery/sept11/wtc_park_monument_september _11.jpg

Now, this was a problem for my original hypothesis that Fred himself had done the faking I have now exposed. In the video, the image is poorly defined, and therefore my immediate assesment was that it was a crude fake: seeing the big foto original, its obviously more sophisticated

Who put it there? I don't know. Maybe it was Fred himself. Maybe it was someone else who alerted Fred to the photo "helpfully". Perhaps its an intellegence agency placing disinformation. Its certainly hard to see what application the fake could have if it was'nt for supporting the "TV Fakery" theory. However, this one step removed means that I can't put Fred on the spot as the faker himself: though I maintain it was not unreasonable of me to initially conclude that, being as the source was not known at the time

This doesnt help Fred much though: at best, he saw this image and used it without thinking to establish its veracity. This is hardly a credit to his research, and reveals a major flaw in his reasoning process: as it does for everyone who has sworn the battery park image is genuine, and claimed to have proven TV fakery: when the reverse is now obviously the case

In this instance, I suppose I could say I forced a confrontation: its not my usual methodology to do so. I'm glad I did, but wouldnt make a habit of it. I'm certainly not moved to have a high opinion of a man, who when I challenged his work, went on to call me a baby raper! If I could be said to have "broken rules", i have broken them only in the spirit of one who values rules, and knows that if they need breaking, break them good and hard

I, and many of my collegues here at the uk campaign forum, see errors like this in "no Planes theory" all the time much of which, of course, is pouring onto the net from www.911researchers.com : stuff that a bit of critical review and backwards checking would show to be unsound: but the No Planes crew push on regardless. Whether they are the disinformed or disinformers, they create white noise obscuring the solid work put in by so many 9/11 activists, and THIS is why so many are convinced that these theories are "damaging the movement": basically because they are the product of bsresearch! Wink

Therefore I ask all of you to do me a favour:

Watch videos by David Ray Griffen, Steven Jones, Webster Tarpley, "press for Truth": focus on the solid and concrete evidence that the truth of 9/11 is being covered up: and get out there and talk about it

Leave No Planes at home:until such time as a case can be put forward that truly is solid and well reasoned out, and not full of such cardinal errors, nor promulgated with such fanatical mindless zeal

Regards to all

John White

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you have ZERO EVIDENCE that the photo from bigfoto.com was created by me, and that was an OUTRIGHT LIE, correct?

Your use of the passive voice to say that the still photo was wrongly labeled is intriguing. Was it wrongly labeled BY JOHN WHITE? Please show us all where I "wrongly labeled" the still photo.

I have posted videos from the park and the ferries which completely discredit the CNN footage, and your flawed analysis has done nothing to show that the photo taken on Septemeber 11, 2001 is fake. You haven't even been able to solve a perspective problem and show where CNN photo was taken.

I stand by my work and I stand by my assessment of John White as a liar.

Finally your assessment of the base of the towers being below sea-level made me laugh. That's a gem. Please draw a red line on the photo to indicate "sea level" to us all so we can see what you're talking about.


Last edited by Fred on Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:37 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always thought the 'statues' photo looked well suspect! Those two guys just acting normal...
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only thing below sea level is the level of analysis here. There's nothing in John's paste-up job to show where sea level is, and moreover, nothing in his analysis that discredits the photos taken on September 11, 2001 and posted at bigfoto.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fred wrote:
...mumbo jumbo...


The leopard shows its spots. No apology offered in return for considerably worse accusations than John ventured. No sign of remorse for using clearly flawed evidence as a lynchpin in his argument. He does what all NPTheorists must, dig in and deny the obvious.

But really, what can anyone add to Freds case now he's hit the CNN footage with this killer blow?



Killer blow, indeed.

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki


Last edited by Fallious on Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
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 Apr 28, 2007 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We're quite used to members of 911researchers thinking de-nile is a river in egypt fred. I'd withdraw peacefully if I were you. But its your hole to dig yourself

btw, any posts on this thread asserting that a completely different video "proves" it will be split off onto another thread. As a moderator, I will moderate this discussion to concern itself only with the battery park photo fake

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're still a liar, you haven't debunked my work, and you haven't debunked the photo taken on September 11. Moreover, you haven't justified your conclusion that the base of the tower was below sea-level. You're still a liar and a fraud, John White of Malvern Hills. I stand by my work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Abusing your position as a so-called moderator to censor and misdirect is old hat for you John. You've now attempted and failed to debunk a photograph that wasn't even taken by me. I don't need that photograph to prove anything at all. Even if the photo were fake, which it isn't, but even if it were, I've already proven that CNN aired fake video tape

YOU FAILED TO IDENTIFY A CAMERA LOCATION WHERE THE CNN VIDEO COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM!

Oops! Nice try though. I'm sure the guy who took the photo will be amused.


Last edited by Fred on Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
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 Apr 28, 2007 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I stand by my work


You hav'nt got a lot of choice, have you Fred? The forum will decide

I have certainly provided all I could be asked for to show my assesment is correct

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yea agree i thought that to about the people in the park, an major event is unfolding around them and they are just acting like you would on a normal day having a stroll in the park. i dont know if its significant though but you look and wonder if they have even noticed whats going of ahead of them.

the points about the park photo highlight why its important to stick to known fact, there is so much disinfo and fakes out there that when proving the how even with good intensions you cannot trust all your sources to be fact/real even when the are claiming to be.

imagine the shame if it got a court case and then you were told that you were basing your whole argument on a fake photo etc, it would get thrown straight out and i think that is the purpose of fakes being put on the net. researchers pick them up use them to prove their case which is then debunked by exposing the photo as fake, making it look like you were faking evidence to fit your argument even if that wasnt the case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
researchers pick them up use them to prove their case which is then debunked by exposing the photo as fake, making it look like you were faking evidence to fit your argument even if that wasnt the case.


Exactly, this is why anyone genuinely interested in TRUTH should be freakin thrilled (though understandably disheartened) if evidence they considered solid ground is demonstrated to be a plant.

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"people in the park"

That's rich. The guy has posted an entire photo series, first of all, and secondly, there is a STATUE and one guy with his back to the camera.

That's what you're calling "people in the park"??

It's one guy probably trying to call his wife, you idiots. What do you expect them to be doing? Taking their clothes off? Running around naked?


You've done no debunking whatsoever.

John White is still a liar, and frankly nobody cares that much what he thinks about anything. If you want this site to remain a cesspool of disinformation, so be it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fred wrote:
disinformation, so be it.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
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 Apr 28, 2007 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A reminder: my case is based entirely on rational extrapolation from known values

"People in the park" dont feature into it

There are many aspects of the battery park still fake that could be further questioned: in particular the smoke issuing from the top of WTC2 that obscures the top edge of the tower, not the case in many other images. However, I have found no need to stray into "maybes" to establish it is "image impossible"

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
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 Apr 28, 2007 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



In addition, I have no need to establish exactly where the CNN footage was shot from when viewing a tower such a large distance away. A few yards or feet horizontally or vertically would make no appreciable difference, especially when I am criticing work that Fred himself has presented as worthy drawing comparison between the CNN footage, showing every sign of being genuine, and the battery park still fake

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fred wrote:
"people in the park"

That's rich. The guy has posted an entire photo series, first of all, and secondly, there is a STATUE and one guy with his back to the camera.

That's what you're calling "people in the park"??

It's one guy probably trying to call his wife, you idiots. What do you expect them to be doing? Taking their clothes off? Running around naked?


You've done no debunking whatsoever.

John White is still a liar, and frankly nobody cares that much what he thinks about anything. If you want this site to remain a cesspool of disinformation, so be it.


hey, calm down! i was just commenting on an observation, it dosnt prove anything i just find it a little strage that none of the people in that shot are gasping in suprise at the towers.

you think there is only one person in view? i see 3 none seem to of noticed or seem bothered about what is happening and none are looking at the towers, just an observation, not evidence.

if the man in the foreground is on a phone what does that prove? he could be calling his mistress for his whipping session later.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John's White's 'analysis' is ludicrous.

Can't people admit it when they have been proved wrong?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



compare this with this. Both are on the net.



now with this from the CNN video.



Which is the odd one out?
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 Apr 29, 2007 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Totally irrelevant Andrew
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can someone just explain what is gained by lowering the damage on the tower, who is suspected of doing this and when was it done?

Since the topic has deteriorated into a personal issue, things have gotten very convoluted.
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 Apr 29, 2007 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
Can someone just explain what is gained by lowering the damage on the tower, who is suspected of doing this and when was it done?

Since the topic has deteriorated into a personal issue, things have gotten very convoluted.


Sure. Lowering the damage on the tower allows a comparison against the CNN footage that allows the suggestion that the CNN footage is fake. Anyone not thinking through carefully may then be persuaded on a false basis.

The who is whomever is responsible for the image ending up on big foto, or at least that is the next step in a logical chain in tracking the image back to source, and the when is unknown (though sometime after 911!)

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stefan
Banned
Banned


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's best just to leave it now.

Virtually every one (in the world let alone on this board) has seen nothing in Freds claims (which he labels "research"), every point he has raised has been answered.

He's clearly not going to change his position because he see's being "right" as more important than the truth. I could buy a camcorder, a ticket to New York (possibly a
camera van with a platform if neccesary), go and find the exact shot and show it - he'd say I'd faked it using advanced black ops trickery doo-dahs: What's The Point?

Guys, he's a lost cause - as long as we fan hs fires by responding to the new post he starts on this topic every day the more webspace we give his nonsense.

Don't feed the troll. Leave him be.

_________________


Peace and Truth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Witchfinder General
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 134

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Game Set and Match for Fred and Andrew over John White
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stefan
Banned
Banned


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps a fitting end to this discussion would be this:

Every single poster who has been asked to respond yes or no to the following has ignored or dodged the question. Why? Because when what they are actually claiming is taken apart and laid down in plain words, even they realise how ridiculous it is. They say "we can prove the CNN shot is faked" (even though they can't) and base this claim on a "missing building" (behind a tree). So what are they actually claiming here?

Let's see if they'll confirm it for us.

I want a yes or no answer from every single poster who has defended or proposed Fred's "theory":

Are you claiming that:

CNN created the whole of New York on computer, and forgot to include a building, rather than super imposing an image of a plane on top of an existing shot of New York.
-?-

Yes or No. That's all I want,

_________________


Peace and Truth
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 Apr 29, 2007 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Witchfinder General wrote:
Game Set and Match for Fred and Andrew over John White


I have to admit, I admire this kind of desperate courage even though I see its futility

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


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 211
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stefan wrote:
I think it's best just to leave it now.


YES PLEASE! All this bickering is getting us nowhere Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
iro
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gypsum wrote:
Stefan wrote:
I think it's best just to leave it now.


YES PLEASE! All this bickering is getting us nowhere Sad

no chance - this site and the wider movement is all about bickering and who's ego and 'evidence' is bigger than the next mans

on this issue - i think its warranted however as this whole no planes/tv fakery or '911 exotic' is just completely irrelevant to 'truth' in the sense of people finding out that 911 was a conspiracy...therefore anyone who obsesses over it through doing so has irretrievably split where there was once something of a movement deserves everything they get, whether their intentions were good or not.

proof comes first, not last and manipulating evidence to get that proof is disgraceful, yet entirely to be expected unfortunately
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rodin wrote:
I always thought the 'statues' photo looked well suspect! Those two guys just acting normal...


This astute observation by Rodin seems to have got lost.
Fred, becoming more hysterical by the second and just prior to his total meltdown responds -

Quote:
"people in the park"

That's rich. The guy has posted an entire photo series, first of all, and secondly, there is a STATUE and one guy with his back to the camera.

That's what you're calling "people in the park"??

It's one guy probably trying to call his wife, you idiots. What do you expect them to be doing? Taking their clothes off? Running around naked?


Yet if we look at the picture -




Well, er, what's wrong with this picture?
Not expecting running round naked...maybe...interest...?...shock....?...Noticing the f*cking twin towers burning maybe...?

He's calling his wife? Slouched...casual...not even looking up...

"yeah, hon...towers a'burnin pretty good now....yeah...casserole's fine...give me an hour..."

Some other guy walking past apparently unfazed; maybe he needs a wee and can't stop to look.

And some guy just visible behind him...just sitting there...chillin'.

Others in the background, but too distant to see clearly.

Not one of the three seemingly taking the blindest bit of notice of the most horrific event they'll likely ever witness...

Hmmmmmmm.....

edit...curiously fred seems to think there's only one guy. His amazing powers of observation that see through all this tv trickery strike again!

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
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, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
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