9/11 - The Great Nose In Nose Out Hoax

John White · Post by **John White** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:07 pm

jfk wrote:'- the nose-out shot, let me say this once and for all and feel free to cut and paste this paragraph whenever you run into this question : the HEIGHT of the nose shapes (nose-in=plane still intact/nose-out=plane crashed through WTC2) are EXACT MATCHES (same number of pixels). The CONTOUR of the nose shapes are very close matches but this is not seen on web quality video because of the differing contrast of the two pixel blocks. I will do my best to illustrate this better in a refined SC edition'

social service

Jeez you guys must be desperate to hang onto this with dear life

Thats truly pathetic

As for "High quality images" etc blah: why doesnt Social Service make his evidence available for Peer Review as promised in "Clues"?

I'll tell you why: 'cos hes a bang to rights bullshitter, thats why

Sorry if thats a problem for anyone, I truly am, but I'm not going to distort my sense of reality just to accomodate your feelings

Anthony Lawson · Post by **Anthony Lawson** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:58 pm

Stupid Comment

jfk wrote:'- the nose-out shot, let me say this once and for all and feel free to cut and paste this paragraph whenever you run into this question : the HEIGHT of the nose shapes (nose-in=plane still intact/nose-out=plane crashed through WTC2) are EXACT MATCHES (same number of pixels). The CONTOUR of the nose shapes are very close matches but this is not seen on web quality video because of the differing contrast of the two pixel blocks. I will do my best to illustrate this better in a refined SC edition'

social service

There was a time, when I was growing up, that I was the same height as my mother. That did not make me her, or anything like her.

Stop being stupid. This was supposed to be a single graphic. The two images do not match one another. End of story.

telecasterisation · Post by **telecasterisation** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:27 pm

Anthony Lawson wrote:There was a time, when I was growing up, that I was the same height as my mother. That did not make me her, or anything like her.

Yes, but what about the occasions when you wore her clothes, people must have confused the two of you then surely?

jfk · Post by **jfk** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:04 pm

There was a time, when I was growing up, that I was the same height as my mother. That did not make me her, or anything like her.

i'm sure it didn't, but, it has no bearing on this issue
.?

chek · Post by **chek** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:02 pm

What does have a bearing is that the anonymous Simon 'I'm just having a larf' Shack has succeeded in planting the illusion in you and those with a similar low threshold the idea that his 'theories' have some substance - without actually following through and providing any. With conmen, the power of suggestion is enough.

jfk wrote:'- the nose-out shot, let me say this once and for all and feel free to cut and paste this paragraph whenever you run into this question : the HEIGHT of the nose shapes (nose-in=plane still intact/nose-out=plane crashed through WTC2) are EXACT MATCHES (same number of pixels). The CONTOUR of the nose shapes are very close matches but this is not seen on web quality video because of the differing contrast of the two pixel blocks. I will do my best to illustrate this better in a refined SC edition'

social service

Mr. Socialdisservice made this identical claim on this identical point of 'providing higher quality evidence' back in August on this thread at PfT and hasn't been seen since.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_T ... 308&st=120

The saddest thing is that most of the NPT hoax dupes will prefer to continue to believe his false claims and outright lies rather than re-evaluate their by now well embedded belief systems.

catfish · Post by **catfish** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:56 pm

This is from Salters .mov nothing is changed by me.

In my opinion the nose/dustcloud coming out is very very much the same shape and height as the 'plane going in. Not trying to piss anyone off but that's my opinion.

Peace

David

telecasterisation · Post by **telecasterisation** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:14 pm

Perhaps it is me but I am unable to sort out what the 'IN' sequence shows - there is no logical order.

catfish · Post by **catfish** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:20 pm

That's the order they appear in time.....

First from the right of the screen, then disappears behind the logo, then appears from behind the logo. Seems like a logical order to me!

Dave

telecasterisation · Post by **telecasterisation** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:08 pm

Perhaps I phrased my question poorly:

What I meant was there is no logic to show a sequence - you only want one pre-entry and one post-exit image to compare UNLESS we are saying because of the poor quality and considerable magnification - the outline changes shape. If we accept that the image outline shifts then this comparison concept is void.

Three frames pre-entry showing considerable variation;

Anthony Lawson · Post by **Anthony Lawson** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:17 am

Remember the Proposition

Note: To make as accurate a comparison of the images as possible, they should not have been smoothed nor anti-aliased. I have made my own set. I do not rely on the work of others. You must go back to the basics.

Simon Shack proposes:

1. What can be seen going into the building is a graphic which is in the shape of a plane.

2. What can be seen coming out of the building is the the same graphic.

3. The matte for superimposing this image, either side of the building, shifted, because the helicopter moved after the graphics artist had set the matte.

4. A supervisor had to fade the composite to black, because of this unforeseen incident.

Why this is not what happened.

Never mind about the shape of the graphic "going in". The shape of the graphic "coming out" changes in each frame, and not because of slight pixel-position variations due to the enlargement process; they change significantly.

The video image of a graphic shape would not have changed significantly, only slightly, due to variations in the pixel positions.

Note: Why the matte was double sided, Shack does not explain. I can achieve the desired effect by using a simple split screen, where there would be absolutely no danger of the graphic being seen on the other side of the building. Shack's proposed method would only be used if you wanted to see the superimposed image appear to come out of the other side of the building.

I have also demonstrated, in "September Clues - Busted!" that the shifting matte would have caused the graphic to appear to enter the building in the side facing the camera, not where it does.

Shack is a musician, the people he accuses of having perpetrated this illusion would have been professionals in the field of video effects work. They would not have used the method Shack proposes.

Shack is also a proven liar, because he deliberately set out to deceive, by fading out the "nose in" in his "Micro-Precision Match" hoax. He knew that the two images didn't match, and he knew what he was doing when he told his video lie.

Now, can we all get some sleep?

jfk · Post by **jfk** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:28 pm

the fact is there is a pixel match

social service did not lie

zzzzzzzzz...

chek · Post by **chek** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:23 pm

jfk wrote:the fact is there is a pixel match

So you claim, but can you show that?
I don't think you can - but please prove me wrong.

jfk wrote:social service did not lie

Simonsocialserviceshack does nothing but lie - as this and his other outrageous 'missing background' and 'inserted plane' claim concoction in the first link of my sig clearly demonstrates.

jfk wrote:zzzzzzzzz...

Back to your NPT fantasy comfort zone. That figures.

jfk · Post by **jfk** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:50 pm

the HEIGHT of the nose shapes (nose-in=plane still intact/nose-out=plane crashed through WTC2) are EXACT MATCHES (same number of pixels).

sorry chek, but, i think you should prove it wrong, as well as 'busted'.

jfk · Post by **jfk** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:00 am

Speaking of "liars":

Anthony Lawson

Simon Shack is the person under discussion, not "Loose Change". Frankly, I'm not a fan of those videos...

saying that I am "not a fan" of Loose Change does not mean that those videos have not contributed to people's awareness of the 9/11 issues. I just don't like the style.

Anthony Lawson

While "Loose Change" is excellent...

Well I guess Lawson is a "proven liar" too!

chek · Post by **chek** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:26 am

jfk wrote:Speaking of "liars":

Anthony Lawson

Simon Shack is the person under discussion, not "Loose Change". Frankly, I'm not a fan of those videos...

saying that I am "not a fan" of Loose Change does not mean that those videos have not contributed to people's awareness of the 9/11 issues. I just don't like the style.
Anthony Lawson
While "Loose Change" is excellent...
Well I guess Lawson is a "proven liar" too!

*sigh*
I mean, who do you think you're kidding, having to use partial quotes, taken out of their context, to deflect attention from your failure to deal with the actual issue under discussion?

Do you really think that the intellectual equivalent of going,
'Oooh - look over there!' fools anybody?

The things you'll make yourself do for a transparent, anonymous conman like Shack, I dunno....
Still, it's your credibility to do what you want with.

jfk · Post by **jfk** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:39 pm

chek,
please prove that the height of the plane graphic in/out does not show an exact pixel match,
thank you

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:30 pm

jfk wrote:chek,
please prove that the height of the plane graphic in/out does not show an exact pixel match,
thank you

jfk what's wrong with you? Anthony Lawson's video has done this - that's how this thread started.

Not only is it not an "exact pixel match" watching the "nose out" shows it expands and changes shape as it emmerges - making it far more likley an explosive explusion of smoke, dust and debris.

But it really doesn't matter does it? You aren't bothered in the truth - just in keeping this division fresh, keeping this argument going, keeping the blood bad.

Bongo · Post by **Bongo** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:00 am

... I didn't take you for a Christian Chek?

chek · Post by **chek** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:19 am

Brian McHugh wrote:... I didn't take you for a Christian Chek?

Hell yes!

And a Merry ... er... time out/time off to UK911'ers of all creeds and credibilities over the late December period.

jfk · Post by **jfk** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:34 pm

hi stefan,
'social service' has stated that the height of the graphic/plane is an exact pixel match.

the height is not adressed in Anthony Lawson's film, as well as many other issue's raised in sept. clues.

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:33 pm

jfk wrote:hi stefan,
'social service' has stated that the height of the graphic/plane is an exact pixel match.

the height is not adressed in Anthony Lawson's film, as well as many other issue's raised in sept. clues.

Um? What?

After showing being shown the two effects were completley different shapes, rather than accept your hero was wrong, start afresh and try and find out what the truth really is, you decide to continue believing something PROVED to be false.

And your rationale? It's the same height? Pathetic!

Whatever is being expelled from the tower is not only a different shape to the plane's nose, it changes shape as it emmerges showing it is not only not the nose of a plane - it is not a solid object at all, or a "graphic" representing one.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:21 pm

september clues is a total embarrassment.

good work, anthony.

Anthony Lawson · Post by **Anthony Lawson** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:29 am

Jack wrote:september clues is a total embarrassment.

good work, anthony.

Thank you for your comment.

I agree, but so many fools have been taken in by it.

jfk · Post by **jfk** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:05 pm

tony and jack, what is your theory on how the 175 and 77 hit the towers?
was it hijackers or was it by remote control?

gruts · Post by **gruts** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:50 pm

more to the point - now that it's been proved beyond doubt that it's not an "exact pixel match", are you finally going to accept that you're wrong and that social service is a liar?

or are you going to continue "spreading lies and denying reality for truth"?

jfk · Post by **jfk** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:10 pm

again..

the HEIGHT of the nose shapes (nose-in=plane still intact/nose-out=plane crashed through WTC2) are EXACT MATCHES (same number of pixels).

jfk · Post by **jfk** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:31 pm

Even though the nose faces aren't a precision match, what's the odds that the exiting "engine/dust" is they VERY similar shape to the plane's nose-in?

gruts · Post by **gruts** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:53 pm

first of all - it's interesting to see how you've moved the goalposts in a desperate attempt to avoid confronting the truth, now that simon shack's claim of an "exact match" has been shown to be a lie.

what comes out of the other side of the tower is clearly not the same as the nosecone of the plane that went in and - in addition - what comes out expands and changes its shape as it emerges.

and believe it or not, the fact that 2 things are roughly the same height does not mean that they are the same....

and the fact that - for a split second only - what comes out is approximately the same height as what went in, is not proof of anything.

this has already been explained to you about a million times, but if you insist on being wilfully blind, I don't suppose there's anything I or anyone else can do to make you see....

Anthony Lawson · Post by **Anthony Lawson** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:38 am

Same Height

jfk wrote:tony and jack, what is your theory on how the 175 and 77 hit the towers?
was it hijackers or was it by remote control?

My son is now the same height as I am. By your logic, that makes him me.

Why would you want to know who flew a graphic plane?

jfk · Post by **jfk** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:14 pm

what comes out is approximately the same height as what went in

good to see we agree that the height is a match.

Why would you want to know who flew a graphic plane?

i don't.
i want you to put forward a hypothesis that supports your view that 175 and 77 hit the towers, instead of just trying to debunk other people's work.

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom