Matt Nelson: 9/11 Debris - An Investigation of Ground Zero

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

It's was common back in the day to add contrast to photos especially if they were to be printed out in pdf format....

My understanding is that even without any retouching, a software like Photoshop would insert its own tags as soon as it grabs an image and saves it - in a different folder, drive or device, for example, just to copy it.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Sorry for all the confusion here everybody. I've left out a critical link.

That Nikon was Gene's camera. That's the reason why I'm saying that he did not take the FEMA fuselage photo. William Baker did, as noted on this Popular Mechanics site:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-myths-planes/ -- I should have pointed that out earlier.
Baker was using a digital camera as the exif data says:
https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...oforensics.png
I would spotlight the "Adobe Photoshop" line, but since it was saved using that program in 2005, and since the 2002 version in the FEMA report looks identical, it's not a big deal. It only shows that whoever used Photoshop (Gene, the "Artist" most likely, since he put his name on it) had a propensity to use that software... not necessarily in 2001 or -02, although that's what I'm claiming - paint tool usage included.

The line of Photoshop is not an indication of the image being "altered". It is an indication of the software that was used to save the image in its present format. I tried to point this out to you with a reference to a fellow at Ytube, who used the same thoughts concerning the Apollo descent stages and equipment imaged on the Moon imaged by the LRO and available online.. Those images always had Photoshop or Ducky, Apple's version of Photoshop. You really should investigate prior to making such claims.

http://web.randi.org/swift/created-b...-image-is-fake

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Sorry for all the confusion here everybody. I've left out a critical link.

That Nikon was Gene's camera. That's the reason why I'm saying that he did not take the FEMA fuselage photo. William Baker did, as noted on this Popular Mechanics site:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-myths-planes/ -- I should have pointed that out earlier.
Baker was using a digital camera as the exif data says:
https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...oforensics.png
I would spotlight the "Adobe Photoshop" line, but since it was saved using that program in 2005, and since the 2002 version in the FEMA report looks identical, it's not a big deal. It only shows that whoever used Photoshop (Gene, the "Artist" most likely, since he put his name on it) had a propensity to use that software... not necessarily in 2001 or -02, although that's what I'm claiming - paint tool usage included.

For starters, Do you know what a Canon S300 actually is? It's a toy. Sub-compact, 2 Mp CCD locked to ISO 100.

However, it's worse. You think the Exif data is some source of evidence. And you are wrong. Attached below is the picture that you complain about.

Check out the Exif data on that one, because the Exif data there proves that you took it in the year 2057. With a camera you made yourself.

Now what?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Oystein

My understanding is that even without any retouching, a software like Photoshop would insert its own tags as soon as it grabs an image and saves it - in a different folder, drive or device, for example, just to copy it.

Originally Posted by bknight

The line of Photoshop is not an indication of the image being "altered". It is an indication of the software that was used to save the image in its present format. I tried to point this out to you with a reference to a fellow at Ytube, who used the same thoughts concerning the Apollo descent stages and equipment imaged on the Moon imaged by the LRO and available online.. Those images always had Photoshop or Ducky, Apple's version of Photoshop. You really should investigate prior to making such claims.

http://web.randi.org/swift/created-b...-image-is-fake

Yup to both. I don't have a copy of PS to hand right now this minute, but PS will tag the Exif of any image as soon as look at it. If you make me, I could crank up that gear and demonstrate that as we speak.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Yup to both. I don't have a copy of PS to hand right now this minute, but PS will tag the Exif of any image as soon as look at it. If you make me, I could crank up that gear and demonstrate that as we speak.

Heh! Might have to turn on my 2002 Mac Pro MDD with its ancient HP Scanner.

Originally Posted by Oystein

My understanding is that even without any retouching, a software like Photoshop would insert its own tags as soon as it grabs an image and saves it - in a different folder, drive or device, for example, just to copy it.

Yes. You can either scan directly into Photoshop using the TWAIN driver or use the scanner software and then import the image into PS. Back in the day it - TIFF format was king but it was usually for graphics pros.

[waypastvne]

I followed a link from your Ebook over to PFFFT and read about half of it. Quit reading when he stopped presenting evidence and started ranting. I found this bit quiet funny:


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...#entry10804295

Quote:

Posted by questionitall

I am certain of that because for one thing the FEMA wreckage is devoid of the tell-tale requisite butt joint seam that runs vertically between the last and second to last passenger cabin window cut-outs on both sides of every Boeing 767 fuselage and perpendicular to its longitudinal axis. In UA175’s case it did so to the right of the (2) in the aircraft registration number marking (N612UA) painted on the right hand side of that fuselage.

That mark is in fact a definite 90 degree angle painted on the wreckage and there can be no doubt about it - we are expected to believe that mark is what remains of the lower leg of the (2) in the painted on aircraft registration number (N612UA), however. It’s important to note here, because that painted mark does not sit directly above a passenger cabin window with the tell-tale requisite butt joint seam just to the right of both features the mark cannot possibly be that of the of the (2) in the aircraft registration number on the right hand side of UA175. According to the UA175 livery then it’s highly unlikely this mark is what the pseudo-investigators working for FEMA would have us believe it is.

I am aware of this butt joint because I've pointed it out in photographs before. So I took a look at the photos he presented (to prove the wrong fasteners were used) and sure enough there is the butt joint plates between window 2 and 3 from rear of plane, just like they are on N612UA. I pointed it out in the photo below.

He may want to count the windows again.




The butt joint being discussed is labeled as "paint sheen line" in the photo below. The joint is exactly were it should be.








As for the Hi-Lok vs solid rivet fasteners he said this:

Quote:

Posted by questionitall

The full reason for that has been explained ad nauseam therein my Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum, but essentially then it has to do with the fasteners highlighted here on this image. The fasteners seen there are Hi-Lok’s when in fact they should be solid rivets, according to a Boeing structural repair technician that is. The reason being he said is solid rivets are always used upon initial assembly when attaching the horizontal stringer to the outer fuselage skin in that area on every Boeing 767.

The only exception to that rule he said is when a repair has been made to the fuselage in the field and for that an E.O. is required. During the repair process of an in service Boeing 767 fuselage Hi-Lok fasteners quite often replace the factory “Huck” fasteners and/or solid rivets.

The paint on that panel doesn't match the paint on the rest of the plane.







Do you think it might have possible, maybe, could have been repaired.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by DGM

Could someone point out what part of the image was supposedly altered?

Seconded, there have been a lot of pictures posted in the thread but I still have no idea what specifically is supposed to be the issue here.

Dave

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Seconded, there have been a lot of pictures posted in the thread but I still have no idea what specifically is supposed to be the issue here.

Dave

Duane Gish may have "passed on" but his legacy continues.

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley (courtesy of DGM's "sig". )

[bknight]

Originally Posted by waypastvne

I followed a link from your Ebook over to PFFFT and read about half of it. Quit reading when he stopped presenting evidence and started ranting. I found this bit quiet funny:


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...#entry10804295




I am aware of this butt joint because I've pointed it out in photographs before. So I took a look at the photos he presented (to prove the wrong fasteners were used) and sure enough there is the butt joint plates between window 2 and 3 from rear of plane, just like they are on N612UA. I pointed it out in the photo below.

He may want to count the windows again.

This is the first time I have viewed this pair of images, but my take on it:
The widow below the left part of the American flag, is the fifth window from the furthest back window. From the wrecked image view, I can count four complete/partial windows. On the furthest left widow I see a butt joint with welds, which would be between the "last" widow and the second. The butt joint seems to be in a different position from the description above.

Quote:

https://i.imgur.com/Z4qPUYA.jpg


The butt joint being discussed is labeled as "paint sheen line" in the photo below. The joint is exactly were it should be.

From your inside image the butt joint is between the second and third widow. I can't view the are between the last and second window as there is a beige(?) tube covering that area. The "paint sheen line" is between the second and third window and may indeed indicate a repair(perhaps this is the area MattNelson suspects is altered). Since that part of the fuselage is in tack, no fasteners are visible, but I don't know if in practice those fasteners are normally visible from the outside.

Quote:

https://i.imgur.com/VHOHLJV.jpg?2





As for the Hi-Lok vs solid rivet fasteners he said this:






The paint on that panel doesn't match the paint on the rest of the plane.



https://i.imgur.com/nfd7Wcd.jpg



Do you think it might have possible, maybe, could have been repaired.

To me there is an issue understanding what the CT is attempting to point out and what you are countering. Would you clarify, please?

[waypastvne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGM
Could someone point out what part of the image was supposedly altered?

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Seconded, there have been a lot of pictures posted in the thread but I still have no idea what specifically is supposed to be the issue here.

Dave

The photo shop claim is at the 1 min mark in this video.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

And a longer version of the video with more details.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by waypastvne

The photo shop claim is at the 1 min mark in this video.

Any chance of anyone just posting a picture with an arrow pointing at the bit that's claimed to be photoshopped, with a few brief lines of text to outline the claim?

Dave

[Mark F]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Any chance of anyone just posting a picture with an arrow pointing at the bit that's claimed to be photoshopped, with a few brief lines of text to outline the claim?

Dave

I would argue that until at least that much is done any discussion along this particular line should be shelved. There is simply no claim to discuss.

[Dave Rogers]

I've looked at the first video, which is a couple of minutes of my life that I'll never get back, and it seems abundantly clear what's happened (despite the various clips of panning shots inserted for no other reason, as far as I can see, than to cloud the issue). The FEMA picture that shows "one piece of wreckage" actually shows two pieces, with the boundary between them either obscured by another piece of wreckage sticking up in the foreground or just not very clear because the two pieces are the same colour. From a different angle the smaller piece is then seen to be separate, but the handrail at the bottom of the steps seen in the disputed picture is also in the second photo showing the smaller piece. I can't even see that this is controversial; the claim of photoshopping seems to be no more than a failure to visualise spatial relationships in 3-D.

Dave

ETA: In other words, exactly what waypastvne said on page 1. Seems utterly obvious once you look at stills from the video.

[waypastvne]

Originally Posted by bknight

To me there is an issue understanding what the CT is attempting to point out and what you are countering. Would you clarify, please?

It is the same old same old. The truther makes a claim and then provideds us with the evidence that proves he is wrong.

This is his claim:

Quote:

the FEMA wreckage is devoid of the tell-tale requisite butt joint seam that runs vertically between the last and second to last passenger cabin window cut-outs on both sides of every Boeing 767 fuselage

He is saying the butt joint on ALL B767s should be where the beige tube is. There fore the debris is fake.

Then he accidentally provides us with a photo that shows the butt joint is really between 2nd and 3rd windows from the tail. Just like it is on the aircraft debris found on top of WTC5.

If you want to understand the fastener claim it's on page 161 in Matts book.

http://911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Deb...att_Nelson.pdf

[Elagabalus]

Basically, if you compare the above photo with this photo:




It appears that someone (or something!!!) has unfurled the fuselage pieces from their previously tangled state.

Gentleman, draw your own conclusions.


More pics:





Actually, Gene would not have needed to use Photoshop because Gene has employed a technique used by Stanley Kubrick (among others) and has composed the pieces "in camera".

[waypastvne]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

the claim of photoshopping seems to be no more than a failure to visualise spatial relationships in 3-D.

Dave

Perfect wording.

[skyeagle409]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

It's not evidence of anything except maybe tampering with evidence. I'm only trying to set the record straight. Gene didn't take the photo; he only edited it. The photo shows 2 pieces, not one.

https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...screenshot.png
This comes from the 2012 NTSB FOIA Appeal PowerPoint document authored by George Black Oct. 25, 2001. Taken with a NIKON E900. See the original photo here, extracted from the PowerPoint doc, which can be found here. It's titled "Does not look like NTSB record--N612U_9_11.ppt" because there is garbage on the ground beneath the larger fuselage piece that looks like a letter B or P. George Black apparently didn't see the other photos (and video) of the fuselage.
https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...oomed-out1.png
Video by Gary Steficek in NIST FOIA 09-42 911datasets.org release 28, 42A0310 – G28D15.
https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...0478.jpg?w=700
Photo by Gary Steficek in NIST FOIA 09-42, 911datasets.org release 32, 42A0367 – G33D1, Steficek-2001-10-18..

Waypastvne posted the only other known image of these fuselage pieces earlier in this thread, from an anonymous contributor in the studyof911.com gallery circa 2006:
https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...trf20-full.jpg

Getting back to my e-book, this is a small sample of the plane parts covered in more than 30 pages. Did you know an engine from Flight 11 sits in the Washington D.C. Newseum labeled Flight 175 (on loan from the FBI)? Skip to my blog post here:
https://911conspiracy.wordpress.com/...bintsb-failed/
or see a quick 3-minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emYWUtNvXvE

That fuselage section came only from UA175. In addition, Hi-Lok fasteners are used in areas where high shear loads are expected, which are unsuitable for solid and Huck rivets. You can replace solid and Huck rivets with a Hi-Lok, but you cannot replace a Hi-Lok with a solid or a Huck rivet.

Huck rivets are called "blind rivets" and are used where solid rivets cannot be bucked with a bucking bar because of closed access. If there is access with a bucking bar, than a solid rivet is preferred over a Huck rivet.

Stress loads determine what kind of fastener is used. For an example, if there is a blind area where high shear loads are expected, special high-shear blind fasteners available.

In regard to that hijacker's passport, I have heard from truthers that passport was planted because passports cannot survive fiery aircraft crashes, but let's take a look here to see if that is true.


Passports Recovered from the crash site of MH-17

http://curacaochronicle.com/main/pas...was-shot-down/


Passport Recovered from the Nepal Air Disaster

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...39_470x423.jpg

[bknight]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

It's not evidence of anything except maybe tampering with evidence. I'm only trying to set the record straight. Gene didn't take the photo; he only edited it. The photo shows 2 pieces, not one.

What specifically is your "tampering with evidence" claim, further what would tampering come from a conspiracy?

Quote:

https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...screenshot.png
This comes from the 2012 NTSB FOIA Appeal PowerPoint document authored by George Black Oct. 25, 2001. Taken with a NIKON E900. See the original photo here, extracted from the PowerPoint doc, which can be found here. It's titled "Does not look like NTSB record--N612U_9_11.ppt" because there is garbage on the ground beneath the larger fuselage piece that looks like a letter B or P. George Black apparently didn't see the other photos (and video) of the fuselage.

Again what part of conspiracy does the above reflect?

Quote:

https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...oomed-out1.png
Video by Gary Steficek in NIST FOIA 09-42 911datasets.org release 28, 42A0310 – G28D15.
https://911conspiracy.files.wordpres...0478.jpg?w=700
Photo by Gary Steficek in NIST FOIA 09-42, 911datasets.org release 32, 42A0367 – G33D1, Steficek-2001-10-18..

And?


[covered by other posters]
[/quote]
What side of the fence are you on any conspiracy concerning 9/11, and we're not interested in JAQ's.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Duane Gish may have "passed on" but his legacy continues.

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley (courtesy of DGM's "sig". )

Yeah, that sums it up nicely.............

Perhaps if he measured each paint scratch on the piece, our knowledge of 9/11 will be enhanced.

[MattNelson]

First of all, thanks to all who are contributing here. Too bad so much of the thread is about this photo. I'll make one more post about it here.

Thanks waypastvne for bringing up the rivet/fastener discussion. Sounds like questionitall on the Pilots forum (and in my book) has been answered. Thanks for taking the time to read!

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

It's was common back in the day to add contrast to photos especially if they were to be printed out in pdf format.

Gene is using the Nikon in a doc made in 2006. Gene might have more than one camera or have access to more than one camera. Gene might have been in contact with Bill and told him he used his image with a bit more contrast, etc. Did you ask them? Maybe this whole thing is easily resolved without invoking nefarious rogue agencies?

You're right. We can't be sure Gene wasn't the photographer. Yet William Baker was named in the Popular Mechanics article and Baker used the camera model named in the exif data in other 2001 photos. Gene died in 2013. I have not contacted Baker. I'd love to ask him if he still has the original images. What chance is there that he'll share them?

To point out the area of the photo in question:



When compared to the other images it looks doctored. No conspiracy implied. Just Gene Corley for whatever reason.

Here's how I see it. Instead of a hard line at the left edge of the larger piece, the two are blended just above that aluminum cladding obstacle. I think the smaller piece should show a gradient and detail of scratches, instead of that violet and light blue. It looks like a light blue paint tool (in Photoshop) was used like a spray can on the far left side of the smaller piece, and on the top right. Also I wonder if the right side of the smaller piece might have appeared in the broken window frame of the larger piece, in which case that area would have been filled creatively... in order to make the pieces look more like one big piece. (It was described as one piece in all appearances - online and in the FEMA report. It looks like one big piece to everybody who first sees it.)

So far no votes here for photo manipulation. Now that the area of the photo is blown up 400% and I've pointed out the suspicious areas.... Anybody?

[Oystein]

What, pray tell, is the point of this excercise? Will we chase unclear spots through all the thousands of images on historical record and compare exifs and brightness levels? I am convinced if we all go through all the material with enough malcious imagination, we will find thousands more "anomalies". Same if we do the same with my latest family reunion album. Will these converge and point to a crime? Hell no!

Matt, what theory is guiding you? Please spell it out with specifity!

Because if you have no theory, all you do is datamining. Datamining is a sure way to find "anomalies" where no pattern actually exists. It's a fool's errand and a waste of lifetime.

What do you take away from your realizing that the pfffft guys make something up out of nothing? You ought to grasp that they are systematically fooling themselves. You should by now have spotted a pattern: NONE of what truthers claim supports any actual theory. ALL of it can be shown to be bunk or nothing. Or do you know of an exception? Do you know an alternative theory of 9/11 that has even one bit of supporting evidence that you are certain of? Please spell them out! Now!

If you find, upon thinking about this hard for 15 minutes, that you have no theory and no evidence after all these years, but already found many truther theories and claims of evidence to hold no water, what side of the fence do want to be on?

[Dave Rogers]

I think the difference in colour between the two photographs is just different lighting conditions, something that's utterly commonplace in photo interpretation. The scratches on the smaller piece aren't visible because they're behind the bigger piece, and the lack of a clear distinction between the two pieces is because they're exactly the same colour - they are, after all, pieces of the same section of fuselage, painted at exactly the same time with exactly the same paint and having experienced exactly the same weathering, so it's to be expected that there is absolutely no difference in colour between them - and the lighting conditions don't cast any shadow on either of them that might indicate a demarcation line. As for being described as one piece by FEMA, your whole argument is based on the fact that, in the photograph, it looks like one piece; why would you expect FEMA to perceive it differently to you?

Dave

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Here's how I see it. Instead of a hard line at the left edge of the larger piece, the two are blended just above that aluminum cladding obstacle. I think the smaller piece should show a gradient and detail of scratches, instead of that violet and light blue. It looks like a light blue paint tool (in Photoshop) was used like a spray can on the far left side of the smaller piece, and on the top right. Also I wonder if the right side of the smaller piece might have appeared in the broken window frame of the larger piece, in which case that area would have been filled creatively... in order to make the pieces look more like one big piece. (It was described as one piece in all appearances - online and in the FEMA report. It looks like one big piece to everybody who first sees it.)

So far no votes here for photo manipulation. Now that the area of the photo is blown up 400% and I've pointed out the suspicious areas.... Anybody?

Here's my take. The colouring difference between the two photographs is explained by a white balance difference and different illumination conditions. The violet tones, the blended borders and the apparent lack of scratch detail are due to lighting, angle and location of the piece, insufficient quality/resolution of the picture and possibly compression artifacts at some spots.

I see the two pieces in the Gene Corley photo. Compare:



paying attention to this detail:



The blending that I understand you see on the left side of the edge I've highlighted is due to colours being too similar and the surface near the border being irregular, with bumps that change the lighting and darken/"blend" the colours.

Furthermore, see the white "shadows" at the edge of the black railing. That's usually an indication of poor detail in my experience.

I can however match some scratches between these two photos:



Most of the ones visible on the right image are not visible on the other because they are hidden from view due to angle and blocking of view by other objects.

I don't see the "spray can" that you refer to.

[Dave Rogers]

Ah, you're right. The way the inside edge of the window opening happens to align with the edge of the piece behind contributes to the appearance of them being the same piece. The smaller piece clearly isn't flat, so in the Corley photo the larger scratches are on a surface that's almost in line with the direction of view, so they don't show up. Look at the acute angle at the bottom of the N; it's almost completely obscured in the Corley photo, along with the section where the scratches are.

I can't say that no manipulation has been done - that old thing about never being able to prove a negative - but taking into account the obvious differences in viewpoint and colour balance / lighting, it seems quite clear to me that the two pictures are entirely compatible with each other.

Dave

[bknight]

Of course the smaller piece will fit onto the larger piece because the smaller piece contains the last window on the starboard side of the aircraft and the larger contains the next four windows. If one of your videos, although not presented here you alluded to this piece "being bent outward to show more of the piece" or words to that effect. Is this tampering with evidence when you have a destroyed aircraft with only minor pieces remaining? To the exact wording yes it probably was, was this for a nefarious purpose, probably not. As for the color difference of the two pieces, I don't find anything in your image or your analysis to indicate photo shopping. This is as Oystein has indicated "It's a fool's errand and a waste of lifetime. Just my take on the situation.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

It's not evidence of anything except maybe tampering with evidence. I'm only trying to set the record straight. Gene didn't take the photo; he only edited it. The photo shows 2 pieces, not one.
...

You were right at the beginning, it is not evidence is a piece of an aircraft. It is not tampering with evidence, it is a photo of an aircraft part.

When I take a photo of my grandson at hockey, I label it a photo of my grandson, even if there are 7 players, ref, et al in the photo. Making up BS about tampering with evidence because the photo is labeled "a piece of an aircraft", is BS, and matches the same logic and evidence used to come up with remote control false flag plot of woo.

The "one piece" photo shows a whole bunch of debris, thus quibbling about one piece, which is in the photo, and the other piece is nonsense. Are there other aircraft parts, or things in the photo? Oh noes, "tampering with evidence".

The aircraft part(s), not needed to solve 9/11.

How is the evidence for false flag remote control coming

[DGM]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

Here's my take. The colouring difference between the two photographs is explained by a white balance difference and different illumination conditions. The violet tones, the blended borders and the apparent lack of scratch detail are due to lighting, angle and location of the piece, insufficient quality/resolution of the picture and possibly compression artifacts at some spots.............................

There is no way to know this until a complete independent scratch analysis is done (with subpoena support).

This should be Matt's next avenue of research and advocacy.

[MattNelson]

Thanks all. I've deleted my 2 YouTube videos with the Photoshop claim -- and I'll edit my blog and book on the subject.

Next.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Thanks all. I've deleted my 2 YouTube videos with the Photoshop claim -- and I'll edit my blog and book on the subject.

Next.

Next what?

Sorry to quote myself:

Originally Posted by Oystein

What, pray tell, is the point of this excercise? Will we chase unclear spots through all the thousands of images on historical record and compare exifs and brightness levels? I am convinced if we all go through all the material with enough malcious imagination, we will find thousands more "anomalies". Same if we do the same with my latest family reunion album. Will these converge and point to a crime? Hell no!

Matt, what theory is guiding you? Please spell it out with specifity!

Because if you have no theory, all you do is datamining. Datamining is a sure way to find "anomalies" where no pattern actually exists. It's a fool's errand and a waste of lifetime.

What do you take away from your realizing that the pfffft guys make something up out of nothing? You ought to grasp that they are systematically fooling themselves. You should by now have spotted a pattern: NONE of what truthers claim supports any actual theory. ALL of it can be shown to be bunk or nothing. Or do you know of an exception? Do you know an alternative theory of 9/11 that has even one bit of supporting evidence that you are certain of? Please spell them out! Now!

If you find, upon thinking about this hard for 15 minutes, that you have no theory and no evidence after all these years, but already found many truther theories and claims of evidence to hold no water, what side of the fence do want to be on?

Read.
Think.

Realize there is no legitimate "next" until you have started to at least consider that the entire Truth Movement is built on delusion and invalid epistemology. Divergent thinking. They are most clearly NOT "truth seekers" but rather "delusion keepers".

Your personal way forward can only be away from that Lies Movement.

Don't waste any more lifetime on an endless procession of "next"s.

[MattNelson]

I meant to bring up the next issue in my book worth discussing. But I do see your point. Many wasted hours can I count, unless I deliver a book worthy of becoming a major resource for dispelling the lies. Much of my time has been spent killing the no planes mania.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

I meant to bring up the next issue in my book worth discussing. But I do see your point. Many wasted hours can I count, unless I deliver a book worthy of becoming a major resource for dispelling the lies. Much of my time has been spent killing the no planes mania.

Well then, you should be one happy camper that one of your claims has crashed and burned. And you can chuck that right in the face of the next 911 wingnut that bothers you.

What is next?

[bknight]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

I meant to bring up the next issue in my book worth discussing. But I do see your point. Many wasted hours can I count, unless I deliver a book worthy of becoming a major resource for dispelling the lies. Much of my time has been spent killing the no planes mania.

How a sane rationale individual could believe there were no planes involved is beyond my comprehension. I remember a retired General, making or causing to be made a video of the Pentagon, saying it was no plane, "I've been there and seen the damage." Even Generals can be duped or show incredible stupidity sometimes.

[waypastvne]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Next.

I did find this link in your book interesting.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf

Quote:

A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.

I find it hard to believe hard to believe an explosion that big would not register, but I have no reason to doubt what they say. Other smaller smaller explosions including a natural gas leak and a gasoline storage tank explosion in the NY area have registered on seismographs in the past.

The reason why I bring this up is because all of the explosions caught on tape that the truth movement constantly waves in our face, Example:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

These explosions also seem to have also been recorded in the seismograph, labeled as further collapse. I can find no evidence (sounds) of anything collapsing at those times but the recorded explosions do seem to fit.



I used the suns position or shadows in the videos and checked them against the times listed in the seismograph read out.

These are the suns positions for those times listed.

Time..........Azimuth....Elevation

11:01:07....137.96......45.88

11:15:04....142.39......47.57

11:29:48....147.37......49.18

Below are the explosions that fit the 11:01:07 bracket.

At the 30 sec mark in video.

This is a composite of shadows and lens sun flairs overlaid to get the suns position. Just right of the stop light.


137.96 deg line just right of stop light.


At the 3:07 mark.

The building casting this shadow has a setback that allows the steeple to be in sunlight. The bottom photo in this composite shows how the shadow falls on the building. There is a clock in the tower. I can't accurately read it but the power is off any way.


137.96 deg line that shows the flag poles in sunlight.



At the 3:20 mark.

Shadow just behind sign (red arrow)


137.96 deg line and a red dot marks the sign.


The explosion at the 0 mark in the video above, is probably also the 11:01:07 explosion, due to the amount of dust in the air. It was filmed 1 block north of the church steeple video. It is completely in the shadow of the same building so there are no shadows to confirm the time.

The 11:15:04 explosion was not actually caught on camera to my knowledge but is mentioned in the video above at the 1:30 mark. To bad for truthers because it was a really big one. FYI when he says it's 11 o'clock, it's not really 11'clock according to the shadows. It's a little after 11:15. This confused me for a wile.

The 11:29:48 explosion was captured on 3 different videos. Once in the video above at the 2:53 mark and in two other videos, with people running down the street yelling gas leak before the explosion occurs.

I believe all 3 explosions were gas leaks. They were reported in the news that day with firemen as a source to be a "series of gas leak explosions".

I belive this to be the source of the gas leak. Which also explains the tosted cars.


I'm too tired tonight to find links and load photos for the last bits of information, but I thought this might be something you would be interested in. You do love the small details.

[MattNelson]

Thanks for the input.

I usually make changes and release a new version of the e-book every year for the past 4, around the time of the anniversary. I may not update it this year.

Any ideas about [small] changes I could make? I don't think I'll add the details about explosions after the collapses because it would be lots of work to write and link to the videos and images while convincing readers of exact times using the sunlight. Maybe by next year I can have it done. (Whenever I make large changes to my book, the formatting gets screwed up [due to image placement] and hours of work become necessary to correct it throughout the book. Sorry I'm not feeling that motivated.)

Incited by the above post, I did make a video, though. (Please comment on YouTube, where I make no money by the way.) It's 10 parts each 2 minutes long (software trial limitation).... with more content to delve into the WTC 7 discussion, which is not a big part of my book.

Some reasons to download the book (67.5 MB, 261 page PDF) include:

1. Tons of links to images and videos, many rare, with original sources noted in most cases, since I'm familiar with nearly all 3+ TB of NIST FOIA data. These links get broken by downed websites and deleted videos. Anybody notice a broken link?

2. Nearly 2,000 links to images, videos, documents, webpages and articles. These help to tell the story of Ground Zero, its recovery crew, and its dead. Many pages are dedicated to the recovery effort, the remains, and the identification by DNA and other methods. For example I made the WTC GPS data spreadsheet into a PDF here (obtained in 2012 by researcher David Cole, NIST FOIA 12-073).

3. Quotes (and images) from books I've read on the subject, now available to those today who only look to the internet. Sorry there is no traditional bibliography.

4. A comprehensive list of airplane parts found, including answers about the 3 engines found. (Not a numbered list like my long lists of airplane videos and collapse videos at 911conspiracy.tv.)

5. A large study of the first plane impact, particularly its alleged jet fuel/overpressure destruction on numerous levels including the lobby, 22nd (beside the Security Command Center involving the elevators), and basement levels. This is summed up in a video I made, 51:31 vrt, "The 9/11 Magic Bullet - September 11, 2001 at 8:46 AM."

6. Exhaustive tracking of the debris tonnage, following its path via truck or barge to Fresh Kills Landfill and to recycling. These figures are compared to pre-9/11 WTC weights -- the original purpose of the book.

7. WTC dust and molten steel are discussed thoroughly. Care to add something? I have an English B.A., so I'm not qualified to grant wisdom on this subject using my words. Therefore I concentrate on providing links to the sources who do deserve attention... as is the case with most of my book.

Thanks for reading. Tell me what you think.

[beachnut]

Quote:

an amazingly fast cleanup of the site.

8 months, is amazingly fast clean up. Fast?

Quote:

The destruction of evidence and investigative failures at the World Trade Center ruins go hand in hand with the quantities and qualities of the physical evidence...

What evidence? 19 terrorists did 9/11, got evidence for anything else? What evidence was destroyed? Evidence of what?

19 terrorists had the only motive and were quickly identified because most of the FBI was checking out all the crew and passengers, and found 19 who had motive.

[beachnut]

Quote:

“When you look at where the towers used to stand, there is surprisingly so little rubble. Where did all the rubble go?”

Not surprisingly, there were 19 acres of ruble from the two acre buildings which were 95 percent air. Do the math, how high is the WTC after collapse when 95 percent was air - solid building would have no rentable space.

How thick are the floors?

Quote:

Investigations: Not added: I should mention the FBI's PENTTBOM investigation, or “Pentagon/Twin Towers Bombing Investigation.” They pinned it on the terrorists who so nicely left bread crumbs at flight schools and in their cars or luggage. Case closed.

Because all the evidence was for 19 terrorists. Makes your paper look like a conspiracy theorists propaganda cherry picked comment opinion failure.

Oh, gee, how did they identify 19 terrorists in days? Gee whiz, they had most of the FBI agents working on the case, and guess what they had in hours, a list of all the people on the planes as Required by FAA regulations. Guess who the only people on board four planes who had motive, and guess who did not? 19 terrorists were quickly identified, don't fly if you commit a crime during flight, they have your name. You dismiss the FBI's biggest investigation flippantly, and have no clue how they identified 19 terrorists, the only people on board who had motive to murder people in the USA. The Passengers on Flight 77 figured out 9/11 in minutes, and knew who the terrorists were - the FBI took longer and had to eliminate all the crew and other passengers.

Your paper is filled with nonsense from conspiracy theorists.

Quote:

The debris that remained once the dust settled had to be explained without professional controlled demolitions using explosives. The likely conclusion/ theory that terrorists may have used bombs in addition to planes was therefore not considered a serious avenue of investigation – maybe because of what would have been [and eventually was] found when looking for such explosives.

What? The energy stored in the building is E=mgh - this was released when the collapse started due to fire, and that energy in each building was equal to more than 100 2,000 pounds bombs - that is why the WTC center looked like it was bombed, it was due to gravity collapse released. Because you can't comprehend physics, you put in opinions and quotes from people not qualified to comment on why steel file cabinets were crushed beyond recognition; you have quotes of vaporized, but no evidence.

Why did you fail to mention the energy due to gravity? oops, you did, you included a paper which explains clearly what I said, the energy of collapse released the equal energy found in over 100 2,000 pound bombs in each building. Which is why we see the destruction of the WTC complex as it is. There was no evidence of bombs used on 9/11. You need to add that to your paper, no evidence for bombs. Did you miss the over 100 2,000 pound bombs, which is over 100 tons of TNT in equal energy?

Is that enough energy to do what we saw? You referenced the energy in the WTC, do you know that? Debunks the need for bombs.

Quote:

“The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was [sic] never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated....”

Do you know why the planes were identified for sure, no doubt? Because the NTSB gathered all the Radar data and confirmed Flight 11, 175, 77 and 93 took off and crashed at the WTC, Pentagon, and PA. Gee, solid evidence, not to mention DNA from all 93, and 77 (save the small kid) and some DNA from 11 and 175. Plus the only planes not accounted for on 9/11 were Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93. If you doubt the identity, then check the Radar data for errors. Radar data is records generated in real time, and recorded. This data is there and used in accident investigations, and for this time the NTSB put reports together for the FBI. Why cherry pick and fail to come up with truth?

And you quote a 9/11 truth nut, Nelson. Good job, include nonsense. Poor George can't do Radar, he seems kind of stuck in the accident investigation world where if a part did cause the crash it would be needed for the investigation. But the only broke parts on 9/11 were 19 gullible failed terrorists, low down murderers who crashed the planes; thus the NTSB and aircraft parts are not needed to solve who did 9/11, it was 19 terrorists, not aircraft parts which failed; which there is evidence all four planes were in good condition as proved by video at the WTC, FDRs for 93 and 77. I have copies of the FDR for 77 and 93, and Radar data for all flights. In the USA we are able to get the evidence, we live in an open society.

Who did 9/11 in your paper?

Quote:

There was and is no excuse. “But radar tracked the planes the whole way,” some point out, “even though the transponders were turned off (AAL11)/changed (UAL175).” (hypothetical conversation) For one thing, false data was displaying on FAA and NORAD readouts for the “war games” simulations coincidentally scheduled that day. I don't know how or if primary radar could have been affected. But secondary, on the other hand....

There was no false data on ATC Radars, or NORAD Radars. Repeating the War Game card makes this paper another failed conspiracy theorist work of woo. Why would War Games (aka exercises) be bad? It would mean evaluators (experienced personnel would be present) were present, and more people ready to help. The Radar is recorded, and the primary returns prove it was four flights from takeoff to landing. You should get the data if you want to check it, and the data has never been debunked.


Conclusion? failed due to no practical knowledge of physics and failure to read your own reference to find how much energy was involved in the collapse.

Quote:

All of the contents and floors of the towers falling through themselves did that? After all I've read and seen, I don't think so. Call it an argument from incredulity, fully realized.

Because you can't comprend 100 tons of TNT due to E=mgh released, which is referenced in your paper references, but you failed to read your own references.

Thus you don't think so due to ignorance of energy, physics, and science.

Redo

Quote:

“A fire chief expects any burning high-rise building to stand for at least three hours before its structural steel begins to stretch dangerously, at which point they will begin to worry about a potential collapse. […]
This is an issue, I suspect, that I will hear more about.” - Dennis Smith, Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center, Viking/Penguin, New York, 2002, p. 210.

Is that true for a building which fire proofing was dislodged by aircraft impacts equal to 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT in energy? Do you realize the 3 hours is for a fire proof intact on steel building? Were the WTC towers fire proofing (the under floor fire proofing could be knocked of by a finger, and the core was wallboard clipped on steel columns) intact? Cherry pick your way to "don't think so". How long does unprotected steel last? Did you miss the WTC bowing?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

...
Thanks for reading. Tell me what you think.

Quote:

Big thanks also to the so-called debunkers who have helped collect info to destroy seriously wacky theories that may have in fact been encouraged by the perpetrators.

Who are the perpetrators who encouraged idiots to make up lies about 9/11? Name one of the perps please, and include evidence to support this, unsupported claim.

[MattNelson]

Thanks Beachnut. I knew I could count on you! Seriously, thanks for your time. I'll let you know what I change.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Thanks Beachnut. I knew I could count on you! Seriously, thanks for your time. I'll let you know what I change.

If your first reaction to the events of 9/11 is that they couldn't have happened without a conspiracy, I suggest you revise that thought before moving onto the later steps where you try to find the "perpetrators".

It may make your life a whole lot easier if you rethink your premise. Nobody was thinking about any kind of "controlled demolition" (whatever that means) before some uneducated nut suggested it. Now it's become like an internet meme the way it's spreading among the ignorant.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by MattNelson

Thanks Beachnut. I knew I could count on you! Seriously, thanks for your time. I'll let you know what I change.

You said this, and offer no evidence.

Quote:

... seriously wacky theories that may have in fact been encouraged by the perpetrators.

How did 19 terrorists, or UBL encourage idiotic claims? 19 terrorists died at impact, and UBL was hiding when he figured out he had gone too far.

I suspected UBL was behind the attack when the second plane hit the WTC (Flight 175). I was up to speed on some of the worldwide terrorist threats, but more to the point, anyone could have studied and paid attention to know UBL promised to kill Americans when and where he could. I suspected he had bought his own planes, which dissolved into reality they stole the planes by faking hijackings. Fake Hijackings giving them minutes to an hour to crash and surprise the USA with a one time only bad deal; and ruin hijacking for future idiots.

If you did not suspect UBL as the say when by, you failed to study terrorism, UBL, and more. If you were too young on 9/11, then you should have gone back and studied the world terrorism in the decade prior, and UBL.

You try to make a global effort at finding truth about 9/11 with 200 plus pages, and failed to read the 10,000 plus pages of NIST, all of FEMA, and failed to see the energy of collapse due gravity as covered in your own sources was more than enough to account for all the damage on 9/11.

Your conclusion, "All of the contents and floors of the towers falling through themselves did that? After all I've read and seen, I don't think so. Call it an argument from incredulity, fully realized. Maybe one day science will be able to model the “global collapse” that ensued after such a short time of fire in the twin steel structures. It was nowhere near 3 hours of fire on steel. ", is not based on data, as you ignore what is in your sources. Each tower released the energy equal to more than 100 tons of TNT, like 100 2,000 pound bombs. Have experienced or seen destruction of one 2,000 pound bomb? In the case of a collapse, the energy is not expended/wasted in blast effects.
Steel fails fast in fire, and since the fire proofing was ripped off due to massive aircraft impacts, the steel failed quickly, and 2 hour, or 3 hours fire rating is not valid after the impacts.
The WTC tower collapse was modeled in simple math form. Anyone can do it, an english major is uniquly qualified to understand. A floor in the WTC can only hold up 12 or less floors of mass. Above 29,000,000 pounds of dust, debris, anything on a WTC floor, it fails. If you have mass moving, about 6 floors of debris can break the next lower floor. Thus once the upper sections began to fall, the next floor unable to hold up the mass falling, failed, as did the next, all the way to the ground. That is the model, it was clearly explained with the also easy to understand, 'global collapse ensued". The WTC tower are unique, the tower floors only hold up themselves, attacked to the core and shell. The core and shell hold up all the floors.

Did you read and understand NIST pertaining to the WTC tower structure? Did you know the chief structural engineer, Robertson says the towers fell as they would/should. He understands the strength and how they were built, he designed the structure.