"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Updates & comments about the movie that exposed the 9/11 scam
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6775
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:44 pm

brainsandgravy wrote:
WTF? Where's your distance factor? You can't compare relative visual sizes without considering distance. I'll say it again--your distance from both objects will affect their relative size visually. THE FARTHER BACK YOU GO, THE BIGGER THE BRIDGE WILL APPEAR IN RELATION TO THE TOWERS.


Dear brainsandgravy,

Firstly, let me ask you to first respond in due fashion to my replies before switching to different topics. You may find your "Voilà-debunked!" style an entertaining way of going about your daunting, self-inflicted task but, as you know, we are dealing with rather serious matters here. We owe our readers maximum clarity in our exchanges and to avoid dodging each other's responses. This becomes difficult if you are to keep hopping from one issue to the next.

Please remember what you wrote a few posts back:

Look how BIG it is being so far from Liberty. It must be fake.


My response to that was simply to illustrate that the bridge shown on the 9/11 broadcasts appeared 10 times larger than on your Statue of Liberty clip. As your own comment was "Look how big it is - it must be fake", it was only a due demonstration of how much smaller it actually appears (compared to the 9/11 imagery) in the 'Liberty clip' that you provided. Ten times smaller, in fact.

Next, do we know how far away the camera was from the Statue of Liberty? I don't think so. I will also have to ask you again what makes you think and state that "the TV choppers were kept 5-miles away from the WTC". If we are to believe the 9/11 imagery, it certainly doesn't look that way. To keep pushing that fancy 5-mile figure is just a stubbornly fallacious argumentation :

ImageImage

From this ABC clip we may see "Chopper 7" is meant to be roughly and no more than 2 miles away from the WTC:
Image
Btw, I'd like you to tell me where I can buy a zoom lens with such a stunning depth of field, capable of holding both close foreground objects and distant panoramas in fine focus, with no discernible blur during fast zoom-ins.

The sort of focal distortion you mention ("caused by the great distance between camera lens and the WTC") is a most unlikely explanation for what we see on the 9/11 TV broadcasts. At the end of the day, we might have to hire a Manhattan sight-seeing chopper and try to reproduce the green History channel view shown below:

The bridge as seen on the History channel..................The bridge as seen in a private flyover of the Manhattan skyline
ImageImage

To be sure, the bridge-size topic is only one of the countless issues/oddities offered by the 9/11 TV broadcasts... <_<
Image

D.Duck
Banned
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:08 pm
Contact:

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by D.Duck » Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:01 pm

Brainsandgravy, or shall we say ER,Beat Seat,Kanga,Debs or Lawson.

Here we go again, this can be fun for the newbies to watch and I know exactly where you guys are going with this one.

If you are going to spread confusion and try to reinstate that John Del Gornio and Paul Smith were in the air in a "real chopper" you need to:

1. Find the guy who made the official statement that said "the choppers need to be 5 miles away" and dont give me any BS about "John said that from the chopper" so it must be true.

2. Explain why the so called "real choppers" always go left to right or right to left on your computer screen even if the shot is taken by Rick from Hoboken on the Jersey side.

As always, Good Luck with that.


Quack
D.Duck

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Dec 29, 2010 5:10 pm

The 9/11 footage is inexcusably bad and absurd. It is the worst disaster footage ever muddled and edited by quasi-professionals into something that vaguely resembles an imitation of news camera recordings - and most of the time it doesn't even resemble that.

What the heck does it resemble? It resembles an attempt to stretch the laws of perspective to its most confusing extremes in order to excuse inadequate software and official story coordination.

"Animation software has amazing 3-D perspective and so does New York. Therefore, September Clues is debunked and Osama bin Laden got airplanes to fly into towers by ordering hijackings of airplanes with no load manifests and no official passenger count with flight numbers that add up to 11, 12, 13 and 14 taking off in that order from his sophisticated cave." - the mantra of the imaginative perp.

Well you get what you pay for, fellas. Hey - MI5 or whomever is cutting the "cheques" for these rebunkers, better raise the salary. They aren't working very hard to disprove that blue-screen technology and animation software exist! By the way, Pixar, Google and Sony Pictures are your enemy. Everyone's seen special effects now. Better go back in time and take those away from the public consciousness! :D

brainsandgravy
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:15 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by brainsandgravy » Wed Dec 29, 2010 5:23 pm

The five mile chopper distance was taken from the very news clip you love to show of the bridge featured in the History channel documentary. It's also the same clip where I got the still I posted showing that the size of the bridge is mathematically consistent from that given distance.

The exact distance of the chopper from Liberty in the other clip is irrelevant, although I posted a link showing how to do the algebra if you're interested. The point was that it looks very large compared to the two home video clips showing the bridge from liberty island (it's about 4 - 5 miles away). You don't seem to understand still that distance is what affects the relative sizes of two distant objects--one in the mid-ground, one in the background. THE BRIDGE WILL APPEAR RELATIVELY BIGGER TO A CLOSER OBJECT THE FARTHER YOU ARE FROM BOTH.

[ADMIN WARNING: This is your final warning. Stop posting outside links to make your points. Show your work here - in post. Further links without your work and analysis for specific counter-argument (as Simon has subjected himself to by posting his work) will simply be deleted. -hp]

It shows the bridge size in relation to the towers from the ESB--only two miles from the towers. The farther back you go--the bigger the bridge will appear relative to the towers.

Regarding the camera on the chopper and focus: With any optical zoom lens, once you zoom all the way in and focus your distant subject--as long as you remain approximately at that distance--you can zoom in and out and the distant object will remain in focus throughout. Zoom wide, it will remain in focus. Zoom half way, it will be in focus. As you zoom out to a wide angle or to an "open" position, objects nearer to you will become clearer also. The reason you can see the chopper equipment so clearly is because the camera has zoomed out.

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Dec 29, 2010 5:47 pm

Brainsandgravy is correct that the simulation software imitates reality, but he is wrong in concluding the footage is real just by trusting the clip is a real camera taken from a real chopper. (I am not sure why anyone would want to do that, given all the footage is fake and doctored but some people really crave blind trust in the media.)

Simulated physics and perspective are mathematical models that have a story around them in order to place them in a "plausible context". The problem is none of the stories really make sense to me and the "bridge issue" is funny but ultimately, it's a distraction because it's one of Simon's poorly made points that can be falsely debunked by saying the weird footage has "plausible" perspective and "plausible" distance. Each shot having either plausible perspective versus implausible perspective was not the argument, as far as I can tell. It was about taking the entire story as a whole and looking at the details therein simultaneously - holding both "whole" and "parts" at once and weighing them against reality - rather than picking and choosing like a buffet which "pieces" make sense and which don't.

In total, the official 9/11 documentation is bunk. If someone demonstrates the likelihood of just one pre-created computer-generated effect in the whole, the entire story of "no pre-knowledge and no media involvement" is blasted to smithereens. Is al Qaeda supposed to have hijacked satellite transmissions? Is that the idea?

As we have already demonstrated several inexplicable errors, the "debunk a September Clue" offer is actually a bit hyperbolic and meant to lure people like you to the "stage" where we can dissect you. You might, if you really tried, be able to completely argue someone into a corner in order to force them to believe you about something that is implausible - but what have you accomplished then? Merely a hucksterism - a P.T. Barnum effect that gives no more credence to the media version than if you'd screamed at someone that Osama bin Laden killed your mother and therefore he was behind 9/11 because you knew most personally about the matter. As you are on our forum, we do not wish to give you the chance to make such a claim and your arguments will be dissected for what they are - blind trust in the media.

Sorry, but the joke is on you, brainsandgravy. There is no "ticket to Mars" you can win. Thanks for playing though.

brainsandgravy
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:15 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by brainsandgravy » Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:26 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Brainsandgravy is correct that the simulation software imitates reality, but he is wrong in concluding the footage is real just by trusting the clip is a real camera taken from a real chopper. (I am not sure why anyone would want to do that, given all the footage is fake and doctored but some people really crave blind trust in the media.)

Simulated physics and perspective are mathematical models that have a story around them in order to place them in a "plausible context". The problem is none of the stories really make sense to me and the "bridge issue" is funny but ultimately, it's a distraction because it's one of Simon's poorly made points that can be falsely debunked by saying the weird footage has "plausible" perspective and "plausible" distance. Each shot having either plausible perspective versus implausible perspective was not the argument, as far as I can tell. It was about taking the entire story as a whole and looking at the details therein simultaneously - holding both "whole" and "parts" at once and weighing them against reality - rather than picking and choosing like a buffet which "pieces" make sense and which don't.

In total, the official 9/11 documentation is bunk. If someone demonstrates the likelihood of just one pre-created computer-generated effect in the whole, the entire story of "no pre-knowledge and no media involvement" is blasted to smithereens. Is al Qaeda supposed to have hijacked satellite transmissions? Is that the idea?

As we have already demonstrated several inexplicable errors, the "debunk a September Clue" offer is actually a bit hyperbolic and meant to lure people like you to the "stage" where we can dissect you. You might, if you really tried, be able to completely argue someone into a corner in order to force them to believe you about something that is implausible - but what have you accomplished then? Merely a hucksterism - a P.T. Barnum effect that gives no more credence to the media version than if you'd screamed at someone that Osama bin Laden killed your mother and therefore he was behind 9/11 because you knew most personally about the matter. As you are on our forum, we do not wish to give you the chance to make such a claim and your arguments will be dissected for what they are - blind trust in the media.

Sorry, but the joke is on you, brainsandgravy. There is no "ticket to Mars" you can win. Thanks for playing though.

You mean I DON"T get to go to mars? Aw gee--YOU JOKERS! HA HA! And and all this time . . . OH MAN you got me good! Okay then . . . RASCALS you are! HA HA HA! You can all come out now!

If you believe I genuinely thought I could disabuse any members of this forum regarding their faith in Simon's 9/11 "fakery" religion--you are mistaken. I knew it was an exercise in futility from the start--but that makes engaging with you people no less amusing. On occasion I might invite inside one of those Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses missionaries who come to my door--just to hear what they have to say and marvel at their simplistic and delusional point of view. Indeed the beauty of the TV fakery "theory" is that it cannot be refuted (which by scientific definition makes it no theory at all), because any counter evidence presented as refutation can (and will) simply be dismissed as "fake".

brainsandgravy
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:15 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by brainsandgravy » Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:32 pm

brainsandgravy wrote:The five mile chopper distance was taken from the very news clip you love to show of the bridge featured in the History channel documentary. It's also the same clip where I got the still I posted showing that the size of the bridge is mathematically consistent from that given distance.

The exact distance of the chopper from Liberty in the other clip is irrelevant, although I posted a link showing how to do the algebra if you're interested. The point was that it looks very large compared to the two home video clips showing the bridge from liberty island (it's about 4 - 5 miles away). You don't seem to understand still that distance is what affects the relative sizes of two distant objects--one in the mid-ground, one in the background. THE BRIDGE WILL APPEAR RELATIVELY BIGGER TO A CLOSER OBJECT THE FARTHER YOU ARE FROM BOTH.

[ADMIN WARNING: This is your final warning. Stop posting outside links to make your points. Show your work here - in post. Further links without your work and analysis for specific counter-argument (as Simon has subjected himself to by posting his work) will simply be deleted. -hp]

It shows the bridge size in relation to the towers from the ESB--only two miles from the towers. The farther back you go--the bigger the bridge will appear relative to the towers.

Regarding the camera on the chopper and focus: With any optical zoom lens, once you zoom all the way in and focus your distant subject--as long as you remain approximately at that distance--you can zoom in and out and the distant object will remain in focus throughout. Zoom wide, it will remain in focus. Zoom half way, it will be in focus. As you zoom out to a wide angle or to an "open" position, objects nearer to you will become clearer also. The reason you can see the chopper equipment so clearly is because the camera has zoomed out.


Goddam this is stupid. Simon asked for a reference to the five mile figure I used regarding the position of the helicopter. If I can't provide a link to the news clip from where it came, then this forum really is meaningless. I guess I'll waste my time on something else.

ThemDarnBats
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:19 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by ThemDarnBats » Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:41 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Each shot having either plausible perspective versus implausible perspective was not the argument, as far as I can tell. It was about taking the entire story as a whole and looking at the details therein simultaneously - holding both "whole" and "parts" at once and weighing them against reality - rather than picking and choosing like a buffet which "pieces" make sense and which don't.


Sure, that is the case when trying to demonstrate the general concept of faked television event to the uninitiated, but if it were to go to trial – let’s say Shack vs. FOX for “Conspiracy to Mislead the Public into a State of War” was taken up as the subject for 2011’s Trial Advocacy Program at a major US law school.

Then the plausibility of each and every shot would most certainly be picked apart and the defense would go through the Sept Clues buffet and pick out what ever it could to prove that what FOX aired that day was real.

I think this thread is exactly the type of discussion that should be encouraged all the time on a forum like this. It is kinda like Plato using Socrates and Polemarchus to nut out the pros and cons of an argument.

You have proved beyond doubt how and why the footage could be faked, not that it actually was.

***BTW - I for one do agree that the footage was faked but that does not mean I could prove that in a court of law***
Last edited by ThemDarnBats on Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

D.Duck
Banned
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:08 pm
Contact:

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by D.Duck » Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:56 pm

ThemDarnBats ,

I for one do agree that the footage was faked but that does not mean I could prove that in a court of law


There is no doubt in my mind Simon can prove beyond any reasonable doubt in a court of law the live footage shown on 9/11 is FAKE and there are some powerful minds to back him up, believe me.

We can also prove beyond any reasonable doubt in a court of law, the audio from the live broadcast on 9/11 is fucked up beyond belief.

Now, there is another thing if we will win the case or not, but that's another story.


Best
D.Duck

ThemDarnBats
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:19 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by ThemDarnBats » Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:34 pm

D.Duck wrote:ThemDarnBats ,

I for one do agree that the footage was faked but that does not mean I could prove that in a court of law


There is no doubt in my mind Simon can prove beyond any reasonable doubt in a court of law the live footage shown on 9/11 is FAKE and there are some powerful minds to back him up, believe me.

We can also prove beyond any reasonable doubt in a court of law, the audio from the live broadcast on 9/11 is fucked up beyond belief.


Y'know, it would be bloody fantastic if we could submit such a civil lawsuit to a law school for their trial advocacy case. Problem is no jury could view those tired old emotive images impartially. I think focusing in on Hoi's work with the passenger load manifests and vicsims would be the way to go.

brainsandgravey has a point when he says "TV fakery "theory"... cannot be refuted... because any counter evidence presented as refutation can (and will) simply be dismissed as "fake"."

That is not to say I think we should all just give up and walk away from it. Maybe proving the evidence that is more easily acceptable and tangible for the general public first will make it easier to ease them into the truth that everything that has ever come out of that retched tube is utter bullshit!

This is a link to Tom Grant's website where he talks about the mock trials conducted at Pacific McGeorge using his Cobain murder evidence: http://www.cobaincase.com/updatelawschool.htm

D.Duck
Banned
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:08 pm
Contact:

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by D.Duck » Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:19 pm

ThemDarnBats ,

Y'know, it would be bloody fantastic if we could submit such a civil lawsuit to a law school for their trial advocacy case.



Very good idea TDB, I think its time to move in that direction.


Best
D.Duck

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6775
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:53 pm

brainsandgravy wrote:You mean I DON"T get to go to mars? Aw gee--YOU JOKERS! HA HA! And and all this time . . . OH MAN you got me good! Okay then . . . RASCALS you are! HA HA HA! You can all come out now!

If you believe I genuinely thought I could disabuse any members of this forum regarding their faith in Simon's 9/11 "fakery" religion--you are mistaken. (...)


So there we are; an all too predictable finale. Aspiring movie-debunker "brainsandgravy" suddenly goes crazy/ballistic and flings all his popcorn in the air - unfailingly dropping the very worn-out accusation of 'religious-like cult-building'.

For centuries, religion used to be the opium of the people. In our modern times, this 'opium' has been replaced by television. Since all we do here is performing rational analyses to establish empirical evidence of wrongdoings, we may rightly claim to combat the dogmatic, uncritical acceptance of unverified information - much as anyone questioning the dogmas spouted by all sorts of churches/mosques/synagogues/etc to control the masses.

This world is ruled by deranged, low-life "would-be-messiahs" employing all their ill-acquired assets to control the unassuming, peaceful inhabitants of this world. As the formers' murky dealings get exposed by sharp and patient observers, the latter get instantly bombarded with accusations of "cult building". Oh, the irony of it all. It reminds me of the inquisition of the middle ages, during which some of Europe's smartest citizens were toasted on bonfires for challenging the dogmas pontificated by churches and kings. If this is where we are at now, in 2010, we should all be ashamed of mankind and its capacity for intelligent evolution. Thankfully, more and more folks on this beautiful planet can see through the dogmas and the lies with the sole power of their own brains. No need for icons, idols, generals, presidents or other cult leaders. We should all aim to recognize and deal with the facts of this world for ourselves.

XxCeltics34xX
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:02 am
Contact:

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by XxCeltics34xX » Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:50 am

Image
Image


The building moved to the left.....

video link- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iczqNZns ... re=related

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2231
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by fbenario » Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:29 am

brainsandgravy wrote:If you believe I genuinely thought I could disabuse any members of this forum regarding their faith in Simon's 9/11 "fakery" religion--you are mistaken. I knew it was an exercise in futility from the start--but that makes engaging with you people no less amusing. On occasion I might invite inside one of those Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses missionaries who come to my door--just to hear what they have to say and marvel at their simplistic and delusional point of view. Indeed the beauty of the TV fakery "theory" is that it cannot be refuted (which by scientific definition makes it no theory at all), because any counter evidence presented as refutation can (and will) simply be dismissed as "fake".

How dare you. You don't like Simon's application to your posts of common sense and logic (or the application of his years of experience identifying shills for the official 9/11 narrative), so you jump to insulting his work.

As for your ad hominem about this forum being faith-based, many of us have replicated all or part of Simon's work for ourselves, and repeated his primary research. I believe this constitutes the proper application of the scientific method to his theories/work. No similarity whatsoever to religion, or any other subject with a foundation in faith.

You also strongly imply that the rest of us are gullible (for having faith in Simon's work), and say that arguing with us is futile. Ridiculous. None of us believes Simon is right because we 'believe in him as our leader'. Rather, we believe he is accurate/right on essentially all points BECAUSE WE'VE CONFIRMED THEM OURSELVES.

Let me put it even more simply for you. Simon has posted over 1,300 hundred times in this forum (and its predecessor). A few of us have read every single word in all of those posts, and don't believe there are holes in any of it. His work has credibility, built painstakingly, layer upon layer, over many years. You, on the other word, have just recently shown up. Why should anyone believe your assertions about anything?

maiklasLTU
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:09 pm
Contact:

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Unread post by maiklasLTU » Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:13 am

If you think every bit of simon's research is 100 % right, you need to think again. The innacuracies have been pointed out from time to time, and it's time to accept these mistakes, even if they don't do a big damage to the research overall.

Post Reply