A scan of an 18% grey card?

Oh come on, you can do better with a nice clear picture like that.

...and moving by speed of about 0.5 m/s.
I know this fact is more about digital compression and frame rate, but it still puts in question the value of your observation.

Either you are being ironic or you do not realise we see a big grey square of nothing. One way or the other, this thread is so out there, how could we tell?


Given your contribs to date, you get the benefit of the doubt for me but, good grief, it is becoming hard to tell crank from irony.

Let us be honest. MJ has his crank scenario. Yankee has an entirely different scenario. Yet somehow they support each other. Because what?

At this point, one cannot further boil this kettle. Irony is no longer appropriate. Nor is mockery. Nor are mere facts. We have hit max loon and when that happens in any scenario, time to walk away.

One merely needs to take a step back and observe the claims made. Yankee's and MJ's claims cannot be reconciled. (well unless one appeals to magic). They care not a whit.

They will align right up to the point at which they consider they have defeated all opposition. Then they will turn on each other.

This has all happened before and this will all happen again.

Ironic? Moi?

The resolution is good enough to see what we need to see. I think that there may be a piece of paper there at the bottom right.

Basically I have stopped the Hezarkhani video at the moment of impact and grabbed a large section of the picture just above the plane.

So what we are looking at is a series of aluminium clad columns about 40 cm wide and windows in between that are 50 cm wide.

I just wanted to get the "resolution is good enough to see what we need to see" claim in context.

I am sufficiently gifted in years to have little patience with this dance. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Else, I have little enough time to waste on cryptic BS. Life is short, and most of mine is in the past.

I don't see anything cryptic about the question. I showed a photograph and asked if anyone could tell me what it was.

And perhaps the video posted on YouTube as the raw video is not the clearest. If there is clearer video of this to be found, I will be happy to have a look.

If the parry in question was involved in this discussion in good faith, you'd be on the right track.

You're not on the right track.

No-planers are bot reality based.

Oh, I see the paper.

You can see the paper when it is zoomed in and when it is zoomed in you can also see the individual columns.

When it is zoomed back out again to where it was when the impact occurred, you can't see them any more.

I got what the picture was pretty much immediately. Not because I distinguished any details, but because I guessed your intentions :)

A bit of GIMPing (a little crop + Normalize) revealed squares typical of compression artifacts:

It's a picture of an elephant in a dust storm. Not sure what that has to do with 9/11, though. :)

It's obvious enough, isn't it? Wake up. It's all there in black and white. The fake media have blinded you to its subtle, entropic perfection.

Say, what model Dodge do you drive?

A no-planer with access to a motor vehicle? Like I don't have enough nightmares.

You've totally lost it. Grand Prix cars don't overtake anything and won't until 2021. FACT!

Roll on 13:00, Friday, 13 March. :dc_biggrin:

I am not sure why you think this is a world view. What is it to me whether there were planes or not?

It is just that any reasonable analysis the evidence says that there were planes.

OK.
To demonstrate that you are not merely engaging in semantic quibbling, I'd like to ask you something:
In the context of 9/11, can you point to an example of a claim or a piece of information from an authority that you initially distrusted, where that distrust did not translate into disbelief, and you ended up accepting it?

I was shocked that the towers can down so quickly and completely. And then 7wtc. Being an architect didn't do much for understanding what I saw.

I did not for a instant think it was an FX display. But I can't explain how everything I see "works".

The first explanations were pancakes and then sagging trusses... They seemed incomplete and did not make sense.

The truther types decided that what they saw was not "natural or normal" and there for the explanations were covering something up... an "inside job".

Other people studied the images and vids and use physics and engineering to work out what was possibly happening. NIST's work was not bad but unsatisfying to me. The ROOSD (by an name) seemed to identify how a long span open office structure would collapse as we saw. It made sense.

I realized without sufficient REAL TIME data there will be no definitive explanation for the collapses. All will be educated guesses... some better than others.

Over time I have learned and accepted the technical work explaining what happened. And over time the truther positions appeared more and more unfounded. Steve's is completely untenable.

There will be no new official investigation. And if there was it would reveal nothing new.

I see my work is done here. Mission Accomplished. As much as I'd like to take credit, all the credit has to go to beachnut and curious_cat for their resourcefulness.
Don't worry about the egg on your face. Though the yolk's on you, it will slide off soon enough. Best wishes to all here...farewell my friends.

A pigeon chess flounce then? Wow, I never saw that coming! :rolleyes:

Wait, before you go we would like you to fill out a small questionnaire in order to serve you better in the future.

Please go to: www.nist.gov/placate-the-sheeple-iniative/questionnaire

When all is lost, declare victory and scarper.

You butchered physics, taken failed video analysis to new levels of incompetence.

Declare victory and run away - the paranoid conspiracy theorist standard exit after failing to produce evidence.

Don't forget to take the prize, the meme of honor

https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

I had to google it, but yeah :) I wonder if he can nail the dismount though? I have my doubts.

Doubtful, but wishful for sure.

You will be sadly missed. You are adorable with your blissful ignorance and selective vision. Pleasure meeting you :-).
BTW: I am proud my screen name has entered the history books being associated with the ultimate proof of the 9/11 conspiracy and the most important scientific discovery ever made!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...er.php?u=74632

Last Activity: Today 03:57 PM

Didn't quite stick the landing there Itchy?

:rolleyes:

Too bad Itchy Boy leaves without addressing...

• my question about why he expects that the damage in the Hezarkhani video should be more visible than a slight darkening (here)
• my question about how many people had to be involved in the no-plane fakery (here)
• the tips I gave him about how to verify what he asked how to verify (here)

It's almost as if he doesn't want the truth and he's just happy to shield himself in whatever twisted view of the world is in his mind. Oh well, he has accomplished his mission, so... *shrug*

I am not even clear about what it is that the no-planers are claiming. OK, I get that this powerful secret cabal supposed to have put together a team of missile experts to mount a precision strike on the WTC towers to make it look like aeroplanes have crashed into them and just trust that this team never mention the fact for the rest of their lives.

And then there is a team of people with cameras and camcorders (including TV journalists and camera operators) who record the event and then turn in the photographs and films to the Cabal and they are just trusted to never mention this fact for the rest of their lives.

The videos and photos are doctored to remove missiles and to insert aeroplanes and these video artists are trusted never to mention this for the rest of their lives.

Then these videos are distributed to all TV stations in some manner not specified and they are showed on television.

Now I am not sure what happens. Are the real planes flown out to sea and ditched or something? Or were there never any real planes and the airline companies agreed to pretend planes and flights existed but never did?

And this thing about the building being empty. Did the companies who are tenants of the buildings tell their employees to stay home that day, but to pretend they had been in the office?

If I am to accept "something, something fuzzy photo" or "something, something fuzzy video" as overwhelming evidence for something, can we at least have it made clear what it is supposed to be evidence for?

Maybe we can have one of them start a thread about this.

Oh, and on his website he apparently thinks that his "something, something fuzzy photo" made us squirm.

He HAS a website?

This is the OP I am talking about. He has one of those dog-breakfasty websites that conspiracy theorists always have.

Oh yes. Lots of squirming.

That means you're on the right track. :rolleyes:

Actually, it's because your whole scenario is implausible. If everyone is in on it, why not use real jets? So much easier.

Sure we are yankee, sure we are.

Calling reality Hogwash.
Calling it a Gish Gallup (Gallop), is funny. And since the list of why you are wrong are correct, you applied the gish gallop in failed manner, like your claims.

Frame rate and resolution are why you are making up lies about the impact, you keep making the delusional claim the videos are fake.

yankee451 don't touch that

It would have been so much easier for the cabal to rig four airliners to lock the cockpit door, gas the pilots, and have four drone pilots remotely control the four airliners and fly them into the buildings. This way, they would wrap up all the loose ends.

- no need to position "crisis videographers"!

- no need to fake any videos

- no need to disappear the planes!

[quote=Robin;12970171]And this thing about the building being empty. Did the companies who are tenants of the buildings tell their employees to stay home that day, but to pretend they had been in the office?

- no need to have the building empty, any survivors who saw the plane hit will testify to it!

Great to have you back, yankee451.
Now you're here, perhaps you could address this: