International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

pgimeno 24th January 2020 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964876)
Because they can't fake photographs like you think they can!

Nor can they fake videos like you think they can! Much less live.

Robin 24th January 2020 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12964974)
Debates and discussions with committed truthers is a complete waste of time. They will not change or go away. They impress ignorant people at best... the types who fall for cults like Scientology.

Rational arguments do not do a thing. It's like showing people who believe in miracles they are delusional.

This thread is a perfect example of how useless such "debates" are.

Well of course they won't change, they are like people who claim that rockets can't work in a vacuum, or people who claim they have a theory that will take the place of General Relativity or that the Earth is flat.

They all have a similar MO. The point is not to change their minds, the point is to understand something of the psychology.

Jack by the hedge 24th January 2020 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain (Post 12964990)
Here's a problem I have with this statement.

I could go on a months long project of documenting every single death... .

But sadly your research does not even need to be considered.

No matter how exacting your research, how watertight your case, how carefully it is argued, it can all be ignored because there exists a photo of something that looks like a piece of aluminium cladding dangling on the outside of the building and it could not have been in that particular spot during the moment an airliner wing smashed through there.

Thus an impossible and utterly preposterous alternative "explanation" is proposed and all sense of reality will be mocked and derided in its stout defence.

JSanderO 24th January 2020 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12965007)
Well of course they won't change, ......

They all have a similar MO. The point is not to change their minds, the point is to understand something of the psychology.

I believe this behavior has been studied by psychologists and is reasonably understood. That does little to get people to be rational.

I suppose people have a need to make sense of the world. Most are not the least bit capable of doing that. So what they do is latch onto something that makes sense to their limited capacity mind.... And they see no reason to change... educate themselves and so on.

Conspiracy theories all share the common element of "going against" conventional wisdom... believing that being lied to... deceived is how people are "controlled". They see themselves as individuals and everyone else acts like unthinking sheep.

Jack by the hedge 24th January 2020 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964847)
It's all part of how they faked the videos. The holes were cut by the missiles before they removed the video mask layer that was hiding the missile impacts like a curtain. On that layer they placed a video layer of the jet. Once the missiles had cut the hole, and the last of the jet had penetrated the tower on the mask layer (along with drawn on smoke), they could remove the mask layer to reveal the very real fireball erupting through the very real hole.

Have you ever seen an example of this technique being done in a way which is undetectable? I don't believe I have. Maybe you could show us some examples.

The best I've seen is the magician Derren Brown "predicting" the UK lottery numbers on live TV in 2009 (with rather better video effects than were available back in 2001). It's very well done, but you can still see flaws when you look for them. He really did use a fixed camera so he could mask half of the picture, but you can see the telltale signs of the added fake camera shake used to make it appear to be a handheld shot.

So how about it? Show us that, using 2001 TV technology, the method you propose could produce results which defy anyone's ability to detect cheating even when they know what they are looking for.

Shalamar 24th January 2020 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12965056)
Have you ever seen an example of this technique being done in a way which is undetectable? I don't believe I have. Maybe you could show us some examples.

The best I've seen is the magician Derren Brown "predicting" the UK lottery numbers on live TV in 2009 (with rather better video effects than were available back in 2001). It's very well done, but you can still see flaws when you look for them. He really did use a fixed camera so he could mask half of the picture, but you can see the telltale signs of the added fake camera shake used to make it appear to be a handheld shot.

So how about it? Show us that, using 2001 TV technology, the method you propose could produce results which defy anyone's ability to detect cheating even when they know what they are looking for.

You couldn't actually edit the videos on 9/11 live. Too many uncertainties. Camera angles, random cameras. Different focal lengths. It might have been 'slightly' easier with the first impact, but not possible with the second as the entire damned world was pointing cameras at the towers.

Not to mention that with video editing you'd need a team of people to do the actual manipulation, and then you'd still have the originals. People would have come forward explaining what they did, and revealed the original videos. After all, two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead. Too many people in this scenario.

That's why I went with elaborate holographic projectors. Nothing to 'edit' as it was happening.

abaddon 24th January 2020 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12964392)
Itchy Boy has a point - to some degree... Max speed of these planes is limited by their aerodynamics. Exceed the design speed substantially, and the plane can virtually fall apart. The speed over the ground which in still air and at sea level equals TAS (true airspeed) is irrelevant. The limiting speed is IAS, indicated airspeed, which determines the aerodynamic effects. It changes with density of the surrounding air and for that reason plane can travel faster at high altitude (less dense air, smaller aerodynamic effects) than at sea level.
The planes involved in the 9/11 attack were impacting at very low altitude - for all practical purposes at sea level - and the Pentagon plane (and I believe at least one of the WTC planes) did exceed its Vne (velocity never exceed). It apparently stayed within its safety margin though because it reached its target in one piece.

And in a dive?

Jack by the hedge 24th January 2020 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 12965090)
... That's why I went with elaborate holographic projectors. Nothing to 'edit' as it was happening.

Ah, but was it holographic planes flying into real towers or real planes flying through holographic towers?

The latter is easier because the planes just switch on a cloaking device and fly away while the towers "collapse" as their hologram projectors are switched off. Simple.

bknight 24th January 2020 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12964884)
There is no visible shattering on impact. A frame by frame view shows every part of the plane including the wingtips penetrate without making any hole and without any debris bouncing off and falling to the ground. Not even any cladding falls until after the explosion. A 6 year old could tell it's a fake.

I suspect at least some of you know it's fake because you've been exposed to a lot of evidence of fakery,but you can never admit it, or concede any truther claim because you fear suffering the same ridicule you and your ilk have heaped upon truth researchers for so long. Your fellow deniers would turn against you and eventually forums like this would disappear for lack of adherents. The denier community would suffer the same infighting that unfortunately is prevalent in the truth community.

The only individual that I am aware believes on this forum is yankee, so that observation might be over the top. Now as to your other comments, you can't observe any disintegration of the airplane because it wasn't filmed with a high speed camera the frame by frame you see is masking the real event.

This is rich and attempts to shift the burden of proof. The event happened, anyone who disagrees with the event, like you and yankee, are the deniers.

bknight 24th January 2020 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964774)
As the evidence you can't handle shows, the claimed deaths are bogus.

If that were true then where are the people that had their deaths claimed?

yankee451 24th January 2020 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest (Post 12964973)
Ryan Mackey's Inflationary Model and Inflationary Limit posts seem applicable here.

Something about not being able to see the forest for the trees...

The Common Potato 24th January 2020 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965149)
Something about not being able to see the forest for the trees...

Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964582)
Well your description doesn't seem to give it the justice it deserves, nor how it is depicted on television or on the Purdue cartoon, but that aside, I missed where you explained how the cartoon illustrates an accurate depiction of the damage to the first nine columns from the left. Anyone can see the wing tip didn't penetrate fully, as depicted in the cartoon. River in Egypt, much?

The cartoon was a theortical do you understand what that means?
Real life is not theortical, the plane was forced to the right on Impact, and the wingspar front connection fractured causing the wing to hinge in toward the Fuselage. It's all quite logical once you know the wing Is attached to the main air frame at the factory and has connections to that frame that can fail in predictable ways.

yankee451 24th January 2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12965159)
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12964982)
But I NEED a reason to rant and rave at my computer in frustration. JSanderO, please don't deny me that.

Ouch.

Shalamar 24th January 2020 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12965134)
Ah, but was it holographic planes flying into real towers or real planes flying through holographic towers?

The latter is easier because the planes just switch on a cloaking device and fly away while the towers "collapse" as their hologram projectors are switched off. Simple.

Holographic planes with planted explosives and vibranium missiles.

Holographic buildings. Pfffft. How silly.

I did toy with the idea of doing it all CGI, but I figured that people would notice the giant green screens hanging from the sides of the towers.

Jack by the hedge 24th January 2020 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965149)
Something about not being able to see the forest for the trees...

But of course the cruise missiles can dodge between the trees, just like those speeder things in Return of the Jedi.

Shalamar 24th January 2020 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12965142)
If that were true then where are the people that had their deaths claimed?

Tahiti. (Itís a magical place)

Jack by the hedge 24th January 2020 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 12965199)
… I did toy with the idea of doing it all CGI, but I figured that people would notice the giant green screens hanging from the sides of the towers.

<lightbulb> Not if they were olive green, cos that's like, camouflage. Gasp. It's all falling into place now. The green screen were there, but nobody could see them. What more proof do we need?

carlitos 24th January 2020 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12965134)
Ah, but was it holographic planes flying into real towers or real planes flying through holographic towers?

The latter is easier because the planes just switch on a cloaking device and fly away while the towers "collapse" as their hologram projectors are switched off. Simple.

Don't forget to project holographic sound throughout Lower Manhattan, so that thousands of people and dozens of recordings could hear.

pgimeno 24th January 2020 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12965217)
Don't forget to project holographic sound throughout Lower Manhattan, so that thousands of people and dozens of recordings could hear.

In surround stereo, moving fast and subject to Doppler effect.

bknight 24th January 2020 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 12965202)
Tahiti. (Itís a magical place)

Yes, I'll bet no one searched there. ;)

Jack by the hedge 24th January 2020 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12965217)
Don't forget to project holographic sound throughout Lower Manhattan, so that thousands of people and dozens of recordings could hear.

Hmm. A cruise missile probably couldn't carry something as big as a PA speaker system, but I suppose two cruise missiles could carry it on a line between them.

Shalamar 24th January 2020 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12965217)
Don't forget to project holographic sound throughout Lower Manhattan, so that thousands of people and dozens of recordings could hear.

That was easy. Speakers scattered around the city. Used calculations to know how loud each speaker was to be and when it was to activate.

Tricky maths though. The vibranium Missiles were not quite loud enough.

The Common Potato 24th January 2020 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965169)
Ouch.

Guess you have a point. But it does suggest you are a troll.

bknight 24th January 2020 11:34 AM

Back to the OP
Please explain how the Hezarkhani video was faked, instead of presenting blurred images of the impact damage with your accompanying misidentification of he it was caused? Include how the audio on the footage was faked. Include how the very large fireball and damage to the building was accomplished?

Leftus 24th January 2020 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964876)
If you had evidence of a missile attack and you went home and turned on the television to see officials from the White House, FEMA, the Mayor's office, the NYPD, FDNY, PANYNJ, OEM, the Pentagon, and the entire world's national leaders and media personalities talking about the planes - that you know damn well were fake - where would you turn if you wanted to blow the whistle? Don't you think the "enemy" nations can recognize missile attacks when they see them?

Where are those enemy nations reports that it was faked? Hell, where are the protests at the UN debunking the pretense for Gulf War 2 on this faked evidence?

Where are these enemy nations doing even as little as you are? Why wasn't any of the enemy nations, or even a group of Muslims who took it on the chin for this, putting together the resources to find a single person on the list of the dead who isn't really dead or never existed? The Iranians, for example would have been eating lunch on this for decades.

This is the same problem the moon landing deniers have, the utter lack of any protests from competing nations. The Russians were not out there screaming "lies!"

As a matter of fact, those we said did it, OBL and company, did take credit for it. Proudly.

But we should take the word of someone with no expertise in material sciences, videography, missile technology, physics, geopolitics, or anything relevant because they have a theory that includes everything they know nothing about. Hard pass.

Itchy Boy 24th January 2020 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12965007)
Well of course they won't change, they are like people who claim that rockets can't work in a vacuum, or people who claim they have a theory that will take the place of General Relativity or that the Earth is flat.

They all have a similar MO. The point is not to change their minds, the point is to understand something of the psychology.

Truth deniers won't change either, for reason's I've touche on earlier.
Interesting and ironic that all the same things can be said of you truth deniers.
Re rockets can't work in a vacuum - some peopdle get some things wrong. That doesn't mean they're wrong about everything.
Flat Earth by the way is not a conspiracy theory. It's another psy-op to discredit other theories by association. Sad that so many have fallen for it,but again, just because someone believes the Earth is flat or that rockets don't work in space doesn't automatically mean they're wrrong about 9/11.

The reason people fall for Flat Earth is that they've discovered that we have indeed been lied to about many Big Things, coupled with the fact that the FE progenitors have provided compelling evidence for itd, though not convincing in my opinion.

Itchy Boy 24th January 2020 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12965241)
Hmm. A cruise missile probably couldn't carry something as big as a PA speaker system, but I suppose two cruise missiles could carry it on a line between them.

you only assume thousands could hear it or that it had to be 'holographic'.
Many witnesses reported hearing no sound.Faking the sounds on recordings is easier than faking the visuals.
I lived under a flight path for Pearson International Airport(Toronto) and was amazed on several occasions to hear surprisingly little sound from low flying jets. So the 'sound' argument is a weak one.

Itchy Boy 24th January 2020 12:03 PM

For you armchhair physicists who point out the plane hit with the force of 2000+ pound of TNT, fail to add that the more massive building hit the plane with an equal amount of force. The impact videos do not depict any physics reality whatsoeverr.d

carlitos 24th January 2020 12:23 PM

never mind - deleted.

bknight 24th January 2020 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965366)
Truth deniers won't change either, for reason's I've touche on earlier.
Interesting and ironic that all the same things can be said of you truth deniers.
Re rockets can't work in a vacuum - some peopdle get some things wrong. That doesn't mean they're wrong about everything.
Flat Earth by the way is not a conspiracy theory. It's another psy-op to discredit other theories by association. Sad that so many have fallen for it,but again, just because someone believes the Earth is flat or that rockets don't work in space doesn't automatically mean they're wrrong about 9/11.

The reason people fall for Flat Earth is that they've discovered that we have indeed been lied to about many Big Things, coupled with the fact that the FE progenitors have provided compelling evidence for itd, though not convincing in my opinion.

Switching the burden of proof again. The event occurred as depicted, and you are a truth denier not us.
Your imagination of the real events of 9/11 are wrong. If you believe that no planes were involved in the destruction of two buildings in the WTC including damage and ultimate destruction of another building then answer one question. Where did the planes and there occupants go? Why is there no visual evidence an radar evidence that the planes that have been lost fly by the buildings?

beachnut 24th January 2020 12:53 PM

love it with liars and fantasy pushers try to explain physics, an FAIL
 
WARNING, FAILED PHYSICS - COULD CAUSE LAUGHTER
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965381)
For you armchhair physicists who point out the plane hit with the force of 2000+ pound of TNT, fail to add that the more massive building hit the plane with an equal amount of force. The impact videos do not depict any physics reality whatsoeverr.d

Wrong on so much it is funny how you butcher physics using physics, and you have no clue why it is funny.

You really should not try to think about physics and make up stuff you can't explain with physics. FAILURE, just don't do it!

What the dead man thought with his last words, "When I got shot I beat the bullet because I hit the bullet with equal amount of force as it ripped up my aorta and shattered my backbone".

yes you are one of the best 9/11 truther physics teacher, yes the body hits the bullet and it stops?

What is your failed point? The WTC and Flight 175 are both made out of metal, but 175 has 66,000 pounds of jet fuel in the wings going 590 mph.

The aircraft is like a big bullet with the energy of 2093 pounds of TNT. If the plane only had 187 pounds of TNT, the WTC shell would stop the plane. It is physics, you can't do physics, DON'T try.

You failed to show why the video is fake; why can't you get on topic? Are you still an anti-vaxxer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
oops, physics, 590 mph plane breaks the WTC shell - what was your point, and why can't you comprehend physics

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29
A study which explain how a plane can do it, but you will not understand. Why are you anti-science, and anti-knowledge

Can you provide the math to explain how the WTC beats the aircraft? What you don't do math too.

Jack by the hedge 24th January 2020 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965377)
you only assume thousands could hear it or that it had to be 'holographic'.

Many witnesses reported hearing no sound.Faking the sounds on recordings is easier than faking the visuals.

I lived under a flight path for Pearson International Airport(Toronto) and was amazed on several occasions to hear surprisingly little sound from low flying jets. So the 'sound' argument is a weak one.

Airliners throttled right back on their descent can be surprisingly quiet. Flying low and very fast over a city on full power is the opposite. Try to be realistic. It was really loud and massive numbers of people cannot have avoided hearing it. If you want to argue some aspect was faked, feel free to describe what you think did happen and why the people who were there generally do not doubt that they saw and heard an airliner.

GlennB 24th January 2020 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965381)
For you armchhair physicists who point out the plane hit with the force of 2000+ pound of TNT, fail to add that the more massive building hit the plane with an equal amount of force. The impact videos do not depict any physics reality whatsoeverr.d

Have you watched the ping pong ball impact on the ping pong bat, the one that has been posted here? How much of the ball bounced outwards, the opposite direction from which it arrived? 'Bugger all' is the answer.

It can be 'easier' for the strong stationary thing to break locally than to halt the progress of the lighter fast thing abruptly. Greenhouse vs. baseball springs to mind. Or bat vs. ball; ping pong, that is.

It's called 'physics'. You have no clue about it.

bknight 24th January 2020 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965377)
you only assume thousands could hear it or that it had to be 'holographic'.
Many witnesses reported hearing no sound.Faking the sounds on recordings is easier than faking the visuals.
I lived under a flight path for Pearson International Airport(Toronto) and was amazed on several occasions to hear surprisingly little sound from low flying jets. So the 'sound' argument is a weak one.

Funny I live 2 miles from a major airport and I always hear flights landing. So we have two diametrical observations of the noise that planes make, what of it Does this prove that the aircraft are fake and the impacts fake? If so how did they do it? Give us specific plans.

beachnut 24th January 2020 01:23 PM

i am bullet proof, I have more mass than bullets - truther physcis
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965381)
For you armchhair physicists who point out the plane hit with the force of 2000+ pound of TNT, fail to add that the more massive building hit the plane with an equal amount of force. The impact videos do not depict any physics reality whatsoeverr.d

armchair? you sound like Balamso and his "keyboard bandit" saying, and he could not do physics either - like you

I was wondering why I was bullet proof, I have more mass than a bullet.

You keep proving you have no clue what physics is.

.357 has 873 joules - the WTC was hit with a mass with 4,380,000,000 joules, or 5,016,926 times more energy.

What caused the damage in your fantasy version of 9/11?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
You have failed to prove this video is fake, and it shows the results of a 767 impact at 590 mph.

So you can't be damaged by a bullet because you have more mass?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

The paddle has more mass, ping pong ball breaks paddle. Your more mass failed to concentrate at the impact point...

Your fantasy world is built on ignorance, massive amounts of ignorance - so massive it blocks the truth

BStrong 24th January 2020 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965381)
For you armchhair physicists who point out the plane hit with the force of 2000+ pound of TNT, fail to add that the more massive building hit the plane with an equal amount of force. The impact videos do not depict any physics reality whatsoeverr.d

With logic this fuzzy, no wonder you're itchy.

Robin 24th January 2020 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12965050)
I believe this behavior has been studied by psychologists and is reasonably understood. That does little to get people to be rational.



I have no ambition to get people to be rational. That in itself would be an irrational ambition.

BStrong 24th January 2020 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12965509)
I have no ambition to get people to be rational. That in itself would be an irrational ambition.

It's similar to accepting you're powerless to have a positive impact or influence on ab addict or alcoholic.

Itchy Boy 24th January 2020 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12965459)
WARNING, FAILED PHYSICS - COULD CAUSE LAUGHTER

Wrong on so much it is funny how you butcher physics using physics, and you have no clue why it is funny.

You really should not try to think about physics and make up stuff you can't explain with physics. FAILURE, just don't do it!

What the dead man thought with his last words, "When I got shot I beat the bullet because I hit the bullet with equal amount of force as it ripped up my aorta and shattered my backbone".

yes you are one of the best 9/11 truther physics teacher, yes the body hits the bullet and it stops?

What is your failed point? The WTC and Flight 175 are both made out of metal, but 175 has 66,000 pounds of jet fuel in the wings going 590 mph.

The aircraft is like a big bullet with the energy of 2093 pounds of TNT. If the plane only had 187 pounds of TNT, the WTC shell would stop the plane. It is physics, you can't do physics, DON'T try.

You failed to show why the video is fake; why can't you get on topic? Are you still an anti-vaxxer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
oops, physics, 590 mph plane breaks the WTC shell - what was your point, and why can't you comprehend physics

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29
A study which explain how a plane can do it, but you will not understand. Why are you anti-science, and anti-knowledge

Can you provide the math to explain how the WTC beats the aircraft? What you don't do math too.

A bullet is denser than flesh. A plane is not denser than steel columns and plate. Maybe it's you that can't comprehend physics. The physics involved here is child's play. No math skills needed. The plane can't be seen to break the shell in the Hezarkhani video, nor can the shell be seen to damage the plane. Your personal attacks are ineffeectual, but keep them up when you have nothing else.

What proof do you have the radar data is real? Were you operating the conlsole that day? See, thee problem with the level of proof you and your ilk want is that it's impossible to obtain. None of us were in the planning meetings or got any of the memos. We all have to rely on the information that's given to us by the media, who, in turn have to rely on what's given to them by gov't agencies. Likewise for any independent 'experts' on TV.No official claims can reliably be verified by the public. What we can do, however, is spot inconsistencies and implausibilities in what's given to us.

To the issue at hand, it's implausible that zero damage would be apparent at the moment of impact. Impllausible, that is, to anyone not desperate to cleave to the official story. I know how hard it is to accept a paradigm change because I've been through it. That's why i don't find it necessary toconstantly make personal slurs against you official story stickers.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.