ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ground zero , Matt Nelson

Reply
Old 9th October 2017, 03:51 PM   #81
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,552
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
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.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2017, 04:13 PM   #82
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
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
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2017, 04:46 PM   #83
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,147
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
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?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 12390_medium.jpg (67.4 KB, 10 views)
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2017, 04:56 PM   #84
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,147
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2017, 05:19 PM   #85
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,907
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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 View Post
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.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2017, 09:21 PM   #86
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 398
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 UA175s 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. Its 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 its 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-Loks 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.

Last edited by waypastvne; 9th October 2017 at 09:25 PM.
waypastvne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 01:34 AM   #87
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,612
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 01:39 AM   #88
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,386
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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". )

Last edited by ozeco41; 10th October 2017 at 01:40 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 05:08 AM   #89
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
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?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:24 AM   #90
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGM
Could someone point out what part of the image was supposedly altered?
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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

Last edited by waypastvne; 10th October 2017 at 09:27 AM.
waypastvne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:33 AM   #91
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,612
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
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
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 10:02 AM   #92
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 10:19 AM   #93
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,612
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.
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 10th October 2017 at 10:22 AM.
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 10:32 AM   #94
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
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
waypastvne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 10:35 AM   #95
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,907


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".

Last edited by Elagabalus; 10th October 2017 at 11:03 AM.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 10:36 AM   #96
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
the claim of photoshopping seems to be no more than a failure to visualise spatial relationships in 3-D.

Dave
Perfect wording.
waypastvne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 01:26 PM   #97
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
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
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 02:06 PM   #98
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
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.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 03:24 PM   #99
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,416
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 12:47 AM   #100
MattNelson
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 24
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 View Post
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?
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 01:56 AM   #101
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,552
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?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 02:02 AM   #102
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,612
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
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 04:50 AM   #103
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,264
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
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.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 11th October 2017 at 04:51 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:03 AM   #104
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,612
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
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 06:26 AM   #105
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 448
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.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 08:52 AM   #106
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,822
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
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
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 04:20 PM   #107
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,416
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
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.






__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:27 PM   #108
MattNelson
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 24
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.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 06:15 PM   #109
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,552
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 06:26 PM   #110
MattNelson
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 24
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.
MattNelson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 06:31 PM   #111
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,147
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
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?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 08:41 PM   #112
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
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.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 01:12 AM   #113
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by MattNelson View Post
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.

Last edited by waypastvne; 12th October 2017 at 01:29 AM.
waypastvne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.