Fake Truther Evidence [Archive]

View Full Version : Fake Truther Evidence

ref

9th November 2007, 02:25 AM

Inspired by this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98282

I decided to put up a thread collecting the fake evidence presented by the truth movement.

First, the fire on the roof of South Tower.

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3847/wtc2firescd5.jpg

Video here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTCFire.mp4 (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTCFire.mp4)

This is fake, because there was no fuel in that spot on the roof, much less anything that would make a 50-foot high, 75-foot wide inferno, no corroborating photos or videos, no corroborating eyewitness accounts and no investigator corroboration.

The glowing picture, used by Steven Jones.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/136394734263b02c86.jpg

In reality, the photo looks like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/136394734263ad0a80.jpg

Oops.

Then there are numerous videos with added sound effects. I can't get to YouTube right now. Could someone post links to faked audio videos used by the truth movement?

Also, post all other fake evidence you remember seeing.

e^n

9th November 2007, 02:34 AM

There was the Pentagon ID card and military records in which the barcode read 123ABC and the records showed clear signs of photoshopping. Names elude me at the moment unfortunately.

Mangoose

9th November 2007, 02:45 AM

How about this stinking piece of fakery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcuOapEyp1o

bofors

9th November 2007, 02:55 AM

The glowing picture, used by Steven Jones.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/136394734263b02c86.jpg

In reality, the photo looks like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/136394734263ad0a80.jpg

That is ridiculous, it is you who are faking evidence here. Your "reality" verson is obviously pixelated with distorted colors.

Let me give you "debunkers" a little hint, unlike NIST et al., Mormon physics professors like Jones do not cook data.

Shrinker

9th November 2007, 03:03 AM

I just posted in the other thread about the first video to the effect that I don't believe a truther did it....

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3137589&postcount=66

Edit: Good idea for a thread though

ref

9th November 2007, 03:04 AM

I just posted in the other thread about the first video to the effect that I don't believe a truther did this....

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3137589&postcount=66

Ok, but in any case it's fake :)

CptColumbo

9th November 2007, 03:08 AM

That is ridiculous, it is you who are faking evidence here. Your "reality" verson is obviously pixelated with distorted colors.

Let me give you "debunkers" a little hint, unlike NIST et al., Mormon physics professors like Jones do not cook data.So it's just the "Mormon physics professors." Have you personally double-checked his data, or did you just assume he was right because he supported your belief system.

This would seem to be another one of your idiotic blanket statements, like the one you made about the Japanese.

Gravy

9th November 2007, 03:10 AM

funk de fino

9th November 2007, 03:13 AM

That is ridiculous, it is you who are faking evidence here. Your "reality" verson is obviously pixelated with distorted colors.

Let me give you "debunkers" a little hint, unlike NIST et al., Mormon physics professors like Jones do not cook data.

What was the photo supposed to show bofors?

The bottom one is the original, the one above used by Jones to support a theory or claim

Gravy

9th November 2007, 03:13 AM

ktesibios did a nice analysis of truther audio fakery, hosted at 911myths.com. http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

Mangoose

9th November 2007, 03:19 AM

Undesired Walrus

9th November 2007, 03:20 AM

Mormons are humans, not angels, and like all humans are susceptible to being liars and fools, as Jones is.

Joseph Smith would be proud.

jhunter1163

9th November 2007, 03:21 AM

In Plane Site has a couple of faked bits, an added flash just before a plane (don't remember which) hit the Tower, and an added voice saying "that was not American Airlines", as if anyone would know or care at that point what airline the big honkin' jetliner that just crashed into the WTC was supposed to be from.

Also, anything to do with Lauro Chavez or "Mike the EMT".

ETA: And what ever happened to Donn de Grand Pre?

ref

9th November 2007, 03:24 AM

Also, anything to do with Lauro Chavez or "Mike the EMT".

Thanks for reminding me about the WTC7 countdowns.

funk de fino

9th November 2007, 03:28 AM

I would like to know more about that pic, which looks partly desaturated and partly oversaturated.

Anyway, if that were really molten metal or fire, you think the firefighters there would crouch that close to it with their faces in it? Looks more like a spot floodlight and they are searching the rubble.

You'll notice the one Jones used is cropped as well. In the original you can see the guy on the left and shafts of light from the searchlight.

Also at least one of the guys is standing in the hole with a shovel and his sleeves rolled up

Shrinker

9th November 2007, 03:32 AM

I would like to know more about that pic, which looks partly desaturated and partly oversaturated.

Anyway, if that were really molten metal or fire, you think the firefighters there would crouch that close to it with their faces in it? Looks more like a spot floodlight and they are searching the rubble.

Yep, I think Jones should be off the hook until a better quality 'original' is found. The one posted has clearly had its colours mangled by some process.

ref

9th November 2007, 03:35 AM

Anyway, the photo that Jones originally used is not original and was used to further his own cause :rolleyes:

Sword_Of_Truth

9th November 2007, 03:37 AM

Let me give you "debunkers" a little hint, unlike NIST et al., Mormon physics professors like Jones do not cook data.

As a mormon, I am deeply ashamed at Jones's antics and his complete and utter lack of honesty and integrity. In particular, his hanging out with nazis and hardcore racists.

But since you seem to hold our physics professors in such high regard, can I ask you opinion of our engineering professors, such as Dr. A. Woodruff Miller and Dr. D. Allan Firmage? (http://debunking911.com/civil.htm)

Gravy

9th November 2007, 03:44 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790473439bce4071.jpg

Gravy

9th November 2007, 04:00 AM

Yep, I think Jones should be off the hook until a better quality 'original' is found. The one posted has clearly had its colours mangled by some process.Shrinker, keep in mind the obvious impossibility that Jones wanted us to believe this showed. His caption for the photo was, “Workers evidently peering into the hot ‘core’ under the WTC rubble.”

We made Jones aware of this ridiculous error (which had passed three rounds of J.O.N.E.S. "peer review"), and he removed the photo from his "Why, Indeed" paper.

I've seen two different prints made by the photographer, and can attest that the color in the bottom photo is good and that in the top photo is completely wrong. In addition, hundreds of thousands of people saw a large print of this which was on display at the Ground Zero fence for over a year.

ETA: You can see the photo as the photographer intended it in the "Here is New York" series. In the "View by number" field, enter 5575. http://hereisnewyork.org/index2.asp

Mangoose

9th November 2007, 04:21 AM

e^n

9th November 2007, 04:25 AM

There's also footage of what I believe is this on one of the 911 related DVDs I own which clearly shows it is a light. Bofors is incorrect.

apathoid

9th November 2007, 04:25 AM

ETA: You can see the photo as the photographer intended it in the "Here is New York" series. In the "View by number" field, enter 5575. http://hereisnewyork.org/index2.asp

Direct link:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/showbig.asp?photoID=5575

ref

9th November 2007, 04:37 AM

Thanks for the photo post everyone. The one I posted wasn't as clear. But the yellow tint is clearly absent in both versions.

cyclonic

9th November 2007, 04:37 AM

this is an italian video exposing jones.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8J2ALXv0c6w

Sword_Of_Truth

9th November 2007, 04:45 AM

Steven Jones can't give a straight answer to a simple question, either. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4997804576359751731&q=Steven+Jones+peer+review&total=56&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

twinstead

9th November 2007, 04:46 AM

Let me give you "debunkers" a little hint, unlike NIST et al., Mormon physics professors like Jones do not cook data.

This is a TOTAL insult to REAL 'morman' physics professors, who, unlike Jones, aren't liars and rabid ideologues.

Shame on you

cyclonic

9th November 2007, 04:56 AM

youtubes slimebuster exposed a faked wtc collapse video
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=s6x07FKJZFw

the faked video is still on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWoWWX6YtA

Gravy

9th November 2007, 05:01 AM

Gravy

9th November 2007, 05:07 AM

this is an italian video exposing jones.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8J2ALXv0c6wThat's a good one. By the way, Jones still hasn't removed the "molten meteorite" (my words) claim from his paper, or the photo of the ironworkers using a torch, which he also claims may be workers peering into the "molten core." Of course, if he removed all the misrepresentations, logical fallacies, conclusions not backed by evidence, and pseudoscience from his paper, he'd have nothing left. He's as transparently fraudulent as they come.

gumboot

9th November 2007, 05:10 AM

In Plane Site has a couple of faked bits, an added flash just before a plane (don't remember which) hit the Tower, and an added voice saying "that was not American Airlines", as if anyone would know or care at that point what airline the big honkin' jetliner that just crashed into the WTC was supposed to be from.

Actually the "that was not American Airlines" bit is from a genuine 9/11 video, and makes perfect sense because it's in reference to United Airlines Flight 175.

Many conspiracy theorists try quote it as "that was not an American airline".

-Gumboot

cyclonic

9th November 2007, 05:23 AM

DGM

9th November 2007, 05:47 AM

These are two of my favorite pieces of "evidence".

"Thermite cut"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1707447344d526ce7c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9135)

"Rivers of steel" (Sorry Max)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_17074469213b61793d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6905)

kookbreaker

9th November 2007, 05:56 AM

ref

9th November 2007, 06:03 AM

IIRC, Richard Gage used some manipulated/looped Norwegian demolition soundtrack in his presentation. I have to look it up.

ETA: Here it is http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3097794&postcount=115

And here:

Start by visiting the ImplosionWorld Cinema (http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm). Choose the Philips building (top of the two rows, right-hand side) and watch the video. Pay particular attention when the timer gets past 10 seconds. You'll hear an explosion, see smoke shoot out from the centre base of the building, then hear another set of explosions, then the building falls. Repeat that a few times so you're familar with the timing.

Take a look at the same implosion from another angle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyyHQQXX_0). We don't have the same view of the base of the building this time, but you can still hear loud explosions before and after first smoke shoots out.

Now visit this page at the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-14.php).

And isn't that strange? Now there's no explosions at all, and what's more you can hear the building fall before it actually happens. It appears this version of the video has either had the explosions removed and seen the rest of the collapse sound moved forward to cover it (which would explain the silent second or two at the end), or perhaps has had the complete audio track added from somewhere else.
http://www.911myths.com/html/what_s_new_.html

SpaceMonkeyZero

9th November 2007, 06:20 AM

Aha, when Gravy said that the photo was on a Ground Zero fence for over a year, I thought, I bet it's in the Here is New York book, and lo! there it is on p. 451:

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1986/10267a2lm8.jpg

This is the original. The one posted above has a similar white balance but is wholly desaturated in parts and oversaturated in other places. The version used by Jones has a yellow tint absent from the original.

A welding torch cutting something? One of those halogen work lights?

SpaceMonkeyZero

9th November 2007, 06:24 AM

youtubes slimebuster exposed a faked wtc collapse video
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=s6x07FKJZFw

the faked video is still on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWoWWX6YtA

I sure wish we still had stockades for public ridicule of idiots.

cyclonic

9th November 2007, 06:31 AM

the bomb in the building lie.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=hmG3z1oVdjc

Alferd_Packer

9th November 2007, 06:46 AM

BigAl

9th November 2007, 06:50 AM

That is ridiculous, it is you who are faking evidence here. Your "reality" verson is obviously pixelated with distorted colors.

Let me give you "debunkers" a little hint, unlike NIST et al., Mormon physics professors like Jones do not cook data.

IMO, Jones would cook data if he had any to cook.

Essentially every use of ellipsis in a Twoofer document (and there are many) is a lie by omission since it invariably leads to finding omitted text is in opposition to Twoofer claims. Many of these are on Jones' website, j911s. Since Jones promotes the work as "peer reviewed", I have no problem calling j911s, Jones and the papers, a fraud.

CHF

9th November 2007, 08:05 AM

Didn't "Sophie" of 9/11 Mysteries add some explosions of demolition
charges to video of the WTC collapses?

IIRC, she made the silly mistake of having the explosions go off just as the towers collapse, when in reality it would take a second or two for the bangs to reach the mic.

CHF

9th November 2007, 08:07 AM

Shrinker

9th November 2007, 08:08 AM

The Silver Shadow

9th November 2007, 08:10 AM

I don't know if this counts as simple stupidity or faking it, but Killtown's video about the plane hitting the North Tower. He said that from the distance from where it was being filmed, it would take 11 seconds for the explosion to reach the mic, but it was quick...

Brainster

9th November 2007, 08:25 AM

There's a WTC-7 video out there that plays in reverse, making it look like smoke was pouring into the building instead of out of it. It actually made it into the History Channel special.

slyjoe

9th November 2007, 08:35 AM

Does the order to remove airphones from He Who Must Not Be Named count?

JamesB

9th November 2007, 10:07 AM

Arkan_Wolfshade

9th November 2007, 10:23 AM

There've been (what, two rounds?) fake military papers. There's been Mike the EMT.

Alareth

9th November 2007, 10:31 AM

Bofors is incorrect.

Well, that sort of goes without saying doesn't it?

BenBurch

9th November 2007, 10:33 AM

Does the order to remove airphones from He Who Must Not Be Named count?

Linkage please? :)

jhunter1163

9th November 2007, 10:48 AM

Actually the "that was not American Airlines" bit is from a genuine 9/11 video, and makes perfect sense because it's in reference to United Airlines Flight 175.

Many conspiracy theorists try quote it as "that was not an American airline".

-Gumboot

I read about this anomaly here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/baker1.html

About three-quarters of the way down (in bold). It's true that it did refer to UA175, but the point is that the comment was added to the film.

Swing Dangler

9th November 2007, 10:50 AM

bofors can see the photo with the correct colors on display in NYC. Jones has acknowledged his error. Remember: he wanted us to believe that these men have their bare faces over a hole that's as hot as a blast furnace. Mormons are humans, not angels, and like all humans are susceptible to being liars and fools, as Jones is.

You mean like these men?
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3326054.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F8FC69301A372875FA55A1E4F32AD3138

JamesB-In my e-mail exchange with him Jones said he got that photo by having a secretary clip it out of a magazine, so it probably wasn't manipulated, just a crappy photo to begin with and he is too lazy to research it.
So now using a picture from a published magazine qualifies as fake evidence by Truthers??? Wow, you really are reaching. At least you had the courage to point that out to fellow debunkers.

On the other hand, I love that one debunking video of WTC 7 where the voice over discusses the lack of water for fighting the fires in WTC 7, and in the foreground is a firefighter, a ladder, and a waterhose figthing the fires near WTC 7. Classic!

JamesB

9th November 2007, 10:51 AM

You mean like these men?
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3326054.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F8FC69301A372875FA55A1E4F32AD3138

So now using a picture from a published magazine qualifies as fake evidence by Truthers??? Wow, you really are reaching. At least you had the courage to point that out to fellow debunkers.

No, misrepresenting a photo from a published magazine is fake evidence.

Disbelief

9th November 2007, 10:54 AM

You mean like these men?
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3326054.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F8FC69301A372875FA55A1E4F32AD3138

Swing, you are not really comparing the two pictures are you? How close are the men in the picture you posted?

So now using a picture from a published magazine qualifies as fake evidence by Truthers??? Wow, you really are reaching. At least you had the courage to point that out to fellow debunkers.

So, he doesn't research a photo and misrepresents it, so that is ok?

negativ

9th November 2007, 11:02 AM

What was the photo supposed to show bofors?

Obviously the firemen found Joseph Smith's hidden angelic artifacts.

Either that, or Jules Winfield's briefcase.

Swing Dangler

9th November 2007, 11:10 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790473439bce4071.jpg
Is this example of Kevin Ryan being decietfull or using facts to support the change in his Slide show. Lets examine this piece of evidence that support's the analysis of Silver's comments by Kevin.

Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.-Source: US Department of State, 9/16/2005

It appears this is why Kevin made the decision to include "they and I" in his 2006 presentation. Fake evidence? No. A change in the analysis based upon the press release by Silverstein, certainly.

Is this an example of fake evidence by truthers, not at all. Is it sloppy research by Gravy? I will let you decide.

No, misrepresenting a photo from a published magazine is fake evidence.
Can you provide the original article from the magazine that Jone's used to support your accusations? Can you prove the article used stated the firefighters were looking into a hole using searchlights instead of somthing else? If so, then you have a case. If not is is an unfounded alegation that Jones is misrepresenting the photo. Evidently-1. Obviously; clearly.
2. According to the evidence available: If the original article may have mentioned fires, flames, heat, etc then you have no case.

Disbelief-Swing, you are not really comparing the two pictures are you? How close are the men in the picture you posted?
Not sure. Not far of course. If the light in the hole is really from molten somthing, how far away is it? Kind of hard to judge the distance of the light source from the firefighters.

16.5

9th November 2007, 11:13 AM

"JamesB-In my e-mail exchange with him Jones said he got that photo by having a secretary clip it out of a magazine, so it probably wasn't manipulated, just a crappy photo to begin with and he is too lazy to research it."

And Swing Says: "So now using a picture from a published magazine qualifies as fake evidence by Truthers??? Wow, you really are reaching. At least you had the courage to point that out to fellow debunkers."

Swing, you ding-a-ling, he said no such thing. He said Jones is lazy. Talk about reaching! The odor of Desperation hangs heavy in the air, Swing.

chillzero

9th November 2007, 11:14 AM

You mean like these men?
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3326054.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F8FC69301A372875FA55A1E4F32AD3138

Swing, heat goes up. You should post an image of men with their faces peering into the top of a furnace to make your point.

Notice how far back these men are stepping from the heat also.

Mangoose

9th November 2007, 11:15 AM

just a crappy photo to begin with and he is too lazy to research it

That sums it all up with the movement, laziness more often than outright fakery. With all the money that Dylan spent on producing his LC, he could have spent a little bit of time to check out the claims he was parrotting off for himself. Like the stupid claim from ignorance of "what's under the blue tarp" at the Pentagon. The photo by itself says nothing, but it allowed truthers' imaginations run wild with what COULD be under there. But simply checking out some basic things -- like the direction in which the men were walking (toward the Pentagon, not away) and other photos of the grounds showing the tents would have cleared up that "9/11 mystery" in a jiffy. Similarly with the "Clancy video" showing a plume rising from WTC5....it was promoted for years by those who never bothered to compare it with other videos of the South Tower collapse.

Swing Dangler

9th November 2007, 11:19 AM

Swing, heat goes up. You should post an image of men with their faces peering into the top of a furnace to make your point.

Notice how far back these men are stepping from the heat also.

Chill was that the only hole heat had to escape from if it were heat?

parky76

9th November 2007, 11:21 AM

Actually, I have evidence that this picture was taken when the FDNY discovered the Holy Grail and the Spear of Destiny, secretly buried under lower Manhattan 1700 years ago by the Angel Gabriel.

:D

jhunter1163

9th November 2007, 11:22 AM

Swing, you ding-a-ling, he said no such thing

This has such a fine Seussian vibe.

Swing, ding-a-ling, now he said no such thing
Not a thing, my friend Swing, to the ring do you bring.

chillzero

9th November 2007, 11:22 AM

Chill was that the only hole heat had to escape from if it were heat?

Nope. Take a good look at that photograph.

In any case, it would still not be directed toward the men, whereas the men staring down into the hole in the 911 photograph would be roasted alive if there was a fire below them.

Mangoose

9th November 2007, 11:25 AM

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.-Source: US Department of State, 9/16/2005

It appears this is why Kevin made the decision to include "they and I" in his 2006 presentation. Fake evidence? No. A change in the analysis based upon the press release by Silverstein, certainly.

That statement does not justify the misleading claim that "[fire department and I] made the decision". Silverstein "expressed his view". It was the fire commander that McQuillan says made the "order". McQuillan does not say that Silverstein and the commander together made the decision to order the people out.

Hokulele

9th November 2007, 11:27 AM

CHF

9th November 2007, 11:28 AM

So now using a picture from a published magazine qualifies as fake evidence by Truthers??? Wow, you really are reaching. At least you had the courage to point that out to fellow debunkers.

So why in your opinion would Steven Jones use that photo while making no attempt to verify what the FDNY was looking at?

Was he lying or is he just a sloppy researcher like the rest of you?

dudalb

9th November 2007, 11:29 AM

Actually, I have evidence that this picture was taken when the FDNY discovered the Holy Grail and the Spear of Destiny, secretly buried under lower Manhattan 1700 years ago by the Angel Gabriel.

:D

Sounds like a plot for the next "National Treasure" movie.

DGM

9th November 2007, 11:30 AM

Nope. Take a good look at that photograph.

In any case, it would still not be directed toward the men, whereas the men staring down into the hole in the 911 photograph would be roasted alive if there was a fire below them.
FYI- I have an open hearth furnace (for metal work). The problem is the radiant heat. The guy holding the ladle is suffering I can assure you. If the firefighters were looking down a hole that bright (if it was fire) they would cook for sure.

Björn Toulouse

9th November 2007, 11:59 AM

I thought the video (at 1:30) posted by cyclonic in post #25 was the best example for what that glow probably was.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8J2ALXv0c6w

Swing Dangler

9th November 2007, 12:15 PM

So why in your opinion would Steven Jones use that photo while making no attempt to verify what the FDNY was looking at?

Do you have reading comprehension problems. Re-examine my comment.
Again, if we knew the source magazine and the context in which the picture was taken, then you might have an arguement.
In speculation, it appears Jones used the picture from a published magazine that used a misleading photograph.

Do you verify photos in published magazines you read, CHF, or do you assume that the photos have already been authenticated?

Perhaps JamesB should follow up the photo to determine the source of the photograph. Then you can determine if the photograph was manipulated by the magazine or someone else.

DGM

9th November 2007, 12:27 PM

beachnut

9th November 2007, 12:38 PM

Chill was that the only hole heat had to escape from if it were heat?
Hitch your wagon to thermite Jones; he made it all up! This means you are?

ktesibios

9th November 2007, 12:47 PM

Maybe we ought to differentiate between faked evidence, i.e., video, photographic and audio records which have been altered for the purpose of presenting the altered versions as evidence of a CT claim, and records which have been altered for artistic purposes or by the artifacts of duplication processes which are then siezed upon and claimed as evidence by CTers blinded by confirmation bias.

For example, there is zero to no doubt that "9/11 Mysteries" contains footage in which the audio has deliberately been altered from the original by the producers of "9/11 Mysteries". The "firefighters at a pay phone" video would fall into the "faked" category, as would the "fire on the Tower roof" video.

OTOH, Jones claiming the "glow" photo as evidence of thermite seems more likely to be an example of Jones being clueless about how much alteration could be effected by phenomena like the printing process, the magazine's production process, the magazine's art director etc. by the time the photo appeared in his secondary source, and Jones not having the wit to search out the original. Similarly, I've been able to verify that the video clip I wrote about for 9/11 Myths was actually taken from a TV movie about Rudy Giuliani, that the altered audio was done for artistic purposes and not for deception and that its presentation as evidence of explosive demolition was a case of truthers being unable or unwilling to understand what they were hearing.

There's a continuum of wrongnitude here that ranges from self-deception due to lack of knowledge and poor researching/thinking skills, through intellectual dishonesty, all the way to outright fraud. If we want to learn anything useful through studying conspiracy theories, I think we want to classify these things accurately.

16.5

9th November 2007, 12:47 PM

"Do you verify photos in published magazines you read, CHF, or do you assume that the photos have already been authenticated?"

Jones wasn't reading an article, Swingy, he was using the photo to support his theory. So, if you don't think he should have authenticated the photo, I can only say (on my behalf) "We'll have to agree to disagree," and on your behalf: "inside jorb! any mistakes the Twoof movement makes are OK with me!! purple dishwasher monkey pants!"

rwguinn

9th November 2007, 01:01 PM

Yeah, but two seconds into the collapse there'd be so much noise that it would drown out the explosions...

[/twoof]

so close to real, it's scary...
:hb:

A W Smith

9th November 2007, 01:05 PM

and who could forget this classic audio added video
260066650590603754

Oh I see cyclonic already posted this a page back , sorry.

ElMondoHummus

9th November 2007, 01:11 PM

In my e-mail exchange with him Jones said he got that photo by having a secretary clip it out of a magazine, so it probably wasn't manipulated, just a crappy photo to begin with and he is too lazy to research it. He refused to address the issue of the compressed concrete, just like he refuses to address most things he is challenged on. Greg Jenkins was honest enough to admit that it was not molten metal at least.

James (and anyone here who happens to remember this): In that photo of the firemen peering down that hole, didn't someone find a second image of the firemen actually moving the light causing that effect? I could've sworn someone either here or at SLC posted that second photo. I just don't remember where it is.

Slayhamlet

9th November 2007, 01:14 PM

snip

"Rivers of steel" (Sorry Max)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_17074469213b61793d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6905)

Does MaxPhoton really maintain that this picture shows molten steel? :boggled:

leftysergeant

9th November 2007, 01:58 PM

The "river of steel" seems to have deied gravity by flowing uphill over the curb without fanning out behind that small dam.

:eye-poppi

Jones also over-looks the fact that heat is directional to some degree. The infrared from that intense a fire wopuld have travelled out in the same direction as the light. Anyone who has ever broiled a steak in an electric oven knows that radiated heat is sometimes far hotter than convected heat.Those men working at the furnace were all standing as far back as possible (note how far back the man with the ladle leans) or standing out of the path of the radiated heat. The air flow around them and the furnace protect them from convected heat.

Jones just doesn't spend time thinking once he has found a scrap of something that supports his prejudices. Thus the Jesus-as-Itzamna paper.

Another example of Jones' presentation of crappy altered evidence is his use of a color-manipulated photo of the meteor that makes it look more like an homogenous piece of once-molten metal. I actually took it to be a different object, a bolus of glass, until someone showed me a side-by-side comparison.

Jones is either a monumental liar or the world's most slovenly researcher with a PhD.

WilliamSeger

9th November 2007, 02:26 PM

I would like to know more about that pic, which looks partly desaturated and partly oversaturated.

I got a nearly identical result in PaintShopPro by cranking the color balance down to 2500K, but not for the whole picture. To match the picture, I had to use a feathered mask centered on the light. That indicates that it was certainly no unintentional error.

(ETA: Found my version.)
http://opendb.com/images/fire1.jpg

slyjoe

9th November 2007, 02:47 PM

Back to the OP, here is Lyte Trip's lovely photoshopped page from the American Airlines Maintenance Manual presented to support the "no airphones" lie.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2721332#post2721332

OH NOOOO - you named He Who Must Not Be Named. :)

Hokulele posted the link you were looking for BenBurch - thanks.

Hokulele

9th November 2007, 02:50 PM

OH NOOOO - you named He Who Must Not Be Named. :)

Oh poop. Doesn't the name have to be spoken three times to instigate the summoning?

pomeroo

9th November 2007, 02:51 PM

CHF

9th November 2007, 03:04 PM

Do you verify photos in published magazines you read, CHF, or do you assume that the photos have already been authenticated?

If I was writing a "scientific" paper in which I make inflamatory accusations about thermite demolitions on 9/11 then YES, I would be damn sure to verify each and every piece of evidence.

In the case of that photo I would have started by contacting the FDNY to ask them what was going on in the photo.

Wouldn't you have done that, Swing?

Or would you, like that idiot Jones, have just taken the liberty of assuming that the firefighters were looking at the product of a thermite reaction without asking them?

Alferd_Packer

9th November 2007, 03:05 PM

This has such a fine Seussian vibe.

Swing, ding-a-ling, now he said no such thing
Not a thing, my friend Swing, to the ring do you bring.

Ka-ching, ka-ching

slyjoe

9th November 2007, 03:07 PM

Oh poop. Doesn't the name have to be spoken three times to instigate the summoning?

One would hope, but He is not known for following simple directions.

pomeroo

9th November 2007, 03:09 PM

If I was writing a "scientific" paper in which I make inflamatory accusations about thermite demolitions on 9/11 then YES, I would be damn sure to verify each and every piece of evidence.

In the case of that photo I would have started by contacting the FDNY to ask them what was going on in the photo.

Wouldn't you have done that, Swing?

No. NO. NO. No, he would not. Absolutely not. No, he wouldn't do it. Nope. Never. Not a chance. Not one chance in a million. Uh-uh. Wouldn't happen.

Or would you, like that idiot Jones, have just taken the liberty of assuming that the firefighters were looking at the product of a thermite reaction without asking them?

DGM

9th November 2007, 03:16 PM

Does MaxPhoton really maintain that this picture shows molten steel? :boggled:
It was on his web site until I called him on it. I had my 9 year old tell Max it was the sun. He couldn't lie to him.:D
It's from a video that I can't find any more. The fire truck in the picture drives through the "molton steel" (sun light).

Miragememories

9th November 2007, 03:22 PM

That's a good one. By the way, Jones still hasn't removed the "molten meteorite" (my words) claim from his paper, or the photo of the ironworkers using a torch, which he also claims may be workers peering into the "molten core." Of course, if he removed all the misrepresentations, logical fallacies, conclusions not backed by evidence, and pseudoscience from his paper, he'd have nothing left. He's as transparently fraudulent as they come.

Hmm..."if he removed all the misrepresentations, logical fallacies, conclusions not backed by evidence, and pseudoscience from his paper, he'd have nothing left"...something like your misrepresenting quotes by leaving out parts that don't support your chosen point of view.

Carry on.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745&view=findpost&p=14682998

MM

Alareth

9th November 2007, 03:27 PM

OH NOOOO - you named He Who Must Not Be Named. :)

Hokulele posted the link you were looking for BenBurch - thanks.

Say his name all you want, he's suspended until he shows the admins that Merc wasn't sharing his account.

I'm willing to bet that will never happen.

Mangoose

9th November 2007, 03:49 PM

The "firefighters at the pay phone video" would fall into the "faked" category

Do you have a linky or more information about this? (Should I get out the popcorn?)

BTW, many of the clips from 9/11 that appeared in popular documentaries have had their audio altered for editing/aesthetic reasons. The added or replacement audio gives a sense of greater continuity/flow or removes undesirable sounds. A good example is the Scott Myers footage of the WTC2 crash. It first appeared in the 9/11 In Memoriam documentary from May 2002. It contains the audio of the crash and the explosion, but has dubbed in the audio of someone saying that another plane has crashed. The raw footage that I found on a Reuters/AP/UPI site (I don't remember which one it was) lacked this audio, and the same is the case with the "911.wtc.2.hit.east.below.2.wmv" clip that has circulated online. The footage also appeared in September 2002 on an A&E "Investigative Reports" documentary, and there the audio was completely replaced with a stereotypical gas-explosion type sound (rather than the dull thud of the original video), which also was timed exactly at the moment of impact (the "thud" in the other versions of the video is delayed by a second, which is what you would expect from Myers' location at John Street).

CHF

9th November 2007, 03:56 PM

Do you verify photos in published magazines you read, CHF, or do you assume that the photos have already been authenticated?

Swing, I really can't believe you actually posted that. It gets more absurd each time I read it.

Granted, I know full well that twoofers like Steven Jones and yourself avoid serious research like the plague and that verifying information pretty much goes against your belief system...

But I'm honestly surprised that you would state it so directly, as if to say "Well of course Jones didn't verify the photo itself or seek to understand what it depicts. Who would do such a silly thing?"

:faint:

Gravy

9th November 2007, 04:12 PM

Perhaps JamesB should follow up the photo to determine the source of the photograph.Is it just me, or does it seem to others that Swing Dangler becomes less mature and more desperate with every single post?

We did verify the source of the photo: Geo magazine, a European publication. It's not a woo publication and it makes no representation about men standing inside a hole that's as hot as a blast furnace. That interpretation is entirely Jones' fraud. Likewise, the original caption in the ironworker photo says "Investigations began as wreckage was cleared," not “Workers evidently peering into the hot ‘core’ under the WTC rubble.” This isn't about the color of the photo. It's about Steven E. Jones' asinine claim about what the photo represents.

I have no idea – none – why people support frauds like Jones and Ryan and attempt to defend their behavior to rational people. No frikkin idea whatsoever. None.

What a stupendous waste of energy.

Miragememories

9th November 2007, 04:54 PM

Is it just me, or does it seem to others that Swing Dangler becomes less mature and more desperate with every single post?

What a stupendous waste of energy.

No there are others besides you that are becoming "less mature and more desperate with every single post."

MM

Disbelief

9th November 2007, 05:00 PM

No there are others besides you that are becoming "less mature and more desperate with every single post."

MM

Do you ever post anything of substance? Usually, it is the hit and run tactics that you truthers so love. Now, you will run back to your LCF buddies looking for high fives.

Arkan_Wolfshade

9th November 2007, 05:03 PM

Do you ever post anything of substance? Usually, it is the hit and run tactics that you truthers so love. Now, you will run back to your LCF buddies looking for high fives.
iirc, there is also the occasional anti-semetic remark.

Miragememories

9th November 2007, 05:30 PM

Do you ever post anything of substance? Usually, it is the hit and run tactics that you truthers so love. Now, you will run back to your LCF buddies looking for high fives.

Hmm.

And there was substance in your post that I'm replying to?

Stand in front of the mirror for a change.

MM

Disbelief

9th November 2007, 05:45 PM

Hmm.

And there was substance in your post that I'm replying to?

Stand in front of the mirror for a change.

MM

Once again, drive by posting. You are the one who continues to pop in, add nothing and run out. My post does have substance because I am pointing out how little you add to any discussion you engage in. Have you ever gotten back with Lash on the thread you keep running from?

beachnut

9th November 2007, 05:45 PM

No there are others besides you that are becoming "less mature and more desperate with every single post."

MM
Is he your brother? You guys both have zero facts to support 9/11 truth. Why are you unable to find facts on 9/11 truth? There will be more false information on 9/11, and you do not seem to care or able to see false information. Best example is Griffins book, you fail to see his errors in a book full of false information. Until you can see the vast amounts of false information in 9/11 truth, you will not present facts about 9/11.

I am still waiting for the list of fact to support 9/11 truth from you and Swing. It is still very hot here.

pomeroo

9th November 2007, 06:11 PM

No there are others besides you that are becoming "less mature and more desperate with every single post."

MM

What is this? Self-awareness? Impossible!

chillzero

10th November 2007, 06:12 AM

Back to topic please - do not personlise the discussion.

Par

10th November 2007, 06:31 AM

And there was substance in your post that I'm replying to? Stand in front of the mirror for a change.

Tu quoque fallacy.

peteweaver

10th November 2007, 06:33 AM

That is ridiculous, it is you who are faking evidence here. Your "reality" verson is obviously pixelated with distorted colors.

Let me give you "debunkers" a little hint, unlike NIST et al., Mormon physics professors like Jones do not cook data.

Oh but they do.

Here's another of the original, which oddly enough happens to be posted on whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_heat4.jpg

I have reposted the image onto my own site so as to not hog their bandwidth:
http://www.infowhores.co.uk/images/tasklighthole.jpg

AMTMAN

10th November 2007, 08:31 AM

Back to the OP, here is Lyte Trip's lovely photoshopped page from the American Airlines Maintenance Manual presented to support the "no airphones" lie.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2721332#post2721332

It's not photoshopped. That is how it appears in the AA maintenance manual. However what Lyte Trip failed to point out was the TR for that particular maintenance manual page which was dated April 2007. In other words that first sentence that he and his buddies over at Pilots for Lies jumped did not appear until April of this year. So either Lyte Trip, aka Craig R, is guilty of poor research or is guilty of misrepresenting the facts. In other words lying.

< http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tr2001ri0.jpg >

< http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search?q=airfones >

funk de fino

10th November 2007, 08:58 AM

Chill was that the only hole heat had to escape from if it were heat?

There is not one of those guys in your photograph standing in the furnace and the guy doing the handling has gloves on. The photo Jones used has two guys apparently standing in the hole full of "molten metal" and the guy with the shovel has his shirt sleeves rolled up and is scooping stuff out of the hole.

I cant believe you are defending this use of a cropped and quite obvious misuse of a photo

Sword_Of_Truth

11th November 2007, 02:15 PM

Let me give you "debunkers" a little hint, unlike NIST et al., Mormon physics professors like Jones do not cook data.

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.
- Mormon Structural Engineering professor, D. Allan Firmage, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
- Mormon Engineering Professor, A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Still waiting for your opinion on this, Bofors.

I do appreciate though, that you respect us and consider us honest people despite knowing little about us. That's very open-minded of you.

BenBurch

11th November 2007, 02:50 PM

ANY large amount of molten steel would not have been where you could see it. It would have sought the lowest level it could reach and formed a pool there. The pool would become a pig. A pig that size would have required extraordinary methods to remove and would have been a magazine article all by itself. And there is no record of this happening.

Therefore there was no large amounts of molten steel anywhere on site.

(And this surprised me as when I did my calculations of the collapse in the week or two following the event, I had assumed that much of the KE would have gone into heat and that there would be molten steel somewhere. I failed to account for the energy expended in deformation of materials and lost to Boyle's Law as the floors pancaked and the heated gas was forced from the building and a few other items...)

leftysergeant

11th November 2007, 04:19 PM

On the other hand, I love that one debunking video of WTC 7 where the voice over discusses the lack of water for fighting the fires in WTC 7, and in the foreground is a firefighter, a ladder, and a waterhose figthing the fires near WTC 7. Classic!

Learn a bit about fire science and fire fighting techniques before you critique fire fighting operations.

The hydrant pressure in the area was not considered adequate for all the fire going on. The fires in WTC 5 and six were small, compared to those in WTC 7 and were not as high up. The buildings were also more stable.

WTC 7 was deemed too dangerous to enter and they just did not have water pressure to apply monitor streams from outside, had they even a schnorkel rig that would reach that high.

Thus the decision to drop back and "cover exposures." this is a tactic in which one merely prevents the fire from spreading from one un-combatible fire through radiant heat or through spreading by way of combustible materials (like dry grass or tons of blowing paper) to other structures or to vehicles.

The stream from that schnorkel rig to which you refer was not much more than would be discharged fro a 2 1/2 inch handline.

That's just covering exposures.

PhantomWolf

11th November 2007, 06:30 PM

What we are seeing from Jones is really quite typical of wnat I'd dup "pseudoresearchers." They go by secondary sources and never bother to hunt out the originals. We see it a huge amount in the ApolloHoax side of things, people that cherry pick photos, films and articles that are secondary sourced and then attribute any errors in the secondary sourcing to NASA. Or course the fact that they could have gone to the primary source and seen if the error was in that as well seems to be beyond them. Jones has done exactly the same thing. Rather than track down the original and verify that the secodary image is correct, he just takes the secondary and goes with it because it fits his story. Shoddy, shoddy research.

jberryhill

11th November 2007, 10:42 PM

Mormon physics professors like Jones do not cook data.

Why not?

Catholic/Protestant/Hindu/Atheist ones have a lock on cooking data?

Belief in the reading of "Reformed Egyptian" gold plates left by a steel-using pre-Columbian civilization, by means of seer stones by a treasure hunter in upstate NY does not, IMHO, make Prof. Jones more credible. However, neither would any other religious belief make his physics more or less credible.

Since Einstein (Jewish), Fermi (Catholic), Bose (Hindu) weren't Mormons, should this influence my take on any of their physics or mathematics?

Any physicist might hold any number of various religious beliefs, and they are irrelevant to his or her ability as a physicist. Accordingly, Jones' belief or non-belief in the above-stated proposition has utterly nothing to do with his credibility as a physicist.

Apparently, Mormon belief does not provide some sort of magic immunity to academic fraud:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEFDC1530F934A15755C0A9679582 60

U. of Utah Selects First Non-Mormon Chief
<...>
Dr. Peterson's eight-year tenure was marked by a controversy over the integrity of cold-fusion research carried out there by B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Amid that controversy, Dr. Peterson admitted that what he had billed as a $500,000 anonymous donation to the university's cold fusion research center had actually been a transfer he authorized from the university's own research foundation.

gumboot

11th November 2007, 10:56 PM

ANY large amount of molten steel would not have been where you could see it. It would have sought the lowest level it could reach and formed a pool there. The pool would become a pig. A pig that size would have required extraordinary methods to remove and would have been a magazine article all by itself. And there is no record of this happening.

If there ever was molten steel, it's possible it was scattered in tiny droplets, and within a very very short space of time would have solidified, thus would only exist as tiny irregular-shaped lumps of steel through the debris pile.

-Gumboot

Pookster

13th November 2007, 09:05 AM

Do you have reading comprehension problems. Re-examine my comment.
Again, if we knew the source magazine and the context in which the picture was taken, then you might have an arguement.
In speculation, it appears Jones used the picture from a published magazine that used a misleading photograph.

Poor scholarship at best. I expect much more from someone with Jones' credentials.

Do you verify photos in published magazines you read, CHF, or do you assume that the photos have already been authenticated?

Perhaps JamesB should follow up the photo to determine the source of the photograph. Then you can determine if the photograph was manipulated by the magazine or someone else.

Assumption is the mother of all f**kups, including when it comes to scholarly pursuits. Also, the last time I cut a picture from a magazine for a research project was grade school. I'd expect a serious researcher to seek out the original (or a verified copy from the source) to use.

You're trying to defend something that can't be defended ... unless we're talking about a middle school project. It's cute watching you try though.

JimBenArm

13th November 2007, 09:40 AM

I think you owe this forum an apology.
Don't hold your breath...

Dr Adequate

13th November 2007, 10:25 AM

Is this example of Kevin Ryan being decietfull or using facts to support the change in his Slide show. Lets examine this piece of evidence that support's the analysis of Silver's comments by Kevin.

Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.-Source: US Department of State, 9/16/2005

It appears this is why Kevin made the decision to include "they and I" in his 2006 presentation. Fake evidence? No. A change in the analysis based upon the press release by Silverstein, certainly. The quotes you've quoted only have any bearing on the "pull" quotation if "pull" means "withdraw from the building". If "pull" means "blow the building up", as the loons aver, then these would be two different discussion of two different decisions, and the account of the one sheds no light on the other.

Sheesh, you people. Will you try to get your story straight?

---

Meanwhile, back in the real world, where by "pull" he meant "withraw", the real "pull" quotation (not Kevin Ryan's version) and the quotes above confirm one another perfectly. In both, Silverstein expresses a view that it would be a good idea to withdraw; in both, the decision is made by the Fire Department.

---

Finally, I would point out that even if Ryan's "analysis" tells him that Silverstein should have said "they and I", the fact is that he didn't, so the quote is bogus. My "analysis" tells me that you should be saying "Yes, Kevin Ryan got it wrong, didn't he?" but it would be dishonest to "quote" you as saying that, 'cos you didn't.

Dave Rogers

13th November 2007, 10:43 AM

The quotes you've quoted only have any bearing on the "pull" quotation if "pull" means "withdraw from the building". If "pull" means "blow the building up", as the loons aver, then these would be two different discussion of two different decisions, and the account of the one sheds no light on the other.

Damn, I missed that one first time round. We have the following sequence, as I see it:
Silverstein says "...they made the decision to pull..."
Ryan changes this to "...they and I made the decision to pull..."
Swing posts a quote that shows that the Fire Department Commander made the decision to pull out the men, after canvassing Silverstein's opinion, exactly as Silverstein stated.
Swing then suggests that this justifies Ryan changing the quote.

If I were Swing Dangler, I'd need that mask, because I don't think I'd want to see my own face in the mirror.

Dave

cyclonic

16th November 2007, 01:52 AM

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=fWi1fmxCGAw

wtc2 flashes uploaded by chucksheen

looks fake to me,what do you think?

jhunter1163

16th November 2007, 02:05 AM

cyclonic

16th November 2007, 02:21 AM

Definitely fake. Watch closely to the left of the tower, some of the "flashes" appear in the sky.

yes, another fine "truther" video.

cyclonic

16th November 2007, 02:31 AM

here we go, small nuclear devices:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=stqHETs4qt8

description:
The aftermath of the twin towers demolition reveals a heat source which is not even addressed by the official 911 Commission's report. Video tape shows bright explosive flashes. Nearby cars are turned into charred wrecks but not crushed by falling debris. A military expert in Finland concludes that small nuclear devices were involved in the destruction of the twin towers.

finns are never wrong :)

ref

16th November 2007, 02:48 AM

finns are never wrong :)

I'm afraid some of us are :D

ref

16th November 2007, 02:52 AM

A military expert in Finland concludes that small nuclear devices were involved in the destruction of the twin towers.

What is most ridicilous about this, that guy is always referred to as "Finnish Military Expert". Even in his Finnish writings he is never mentions his name, nor rank. He just calls himself "Military Expert".

Total junk I would say.

leftysergeant

16th November 2007, 02:59 AM

That Finnish idiot says that radiation in a dust cloud will give it a brown appearance. That's all we need to know about him to know that that fool was never even in the military.

As for the flashes, they are genuyine. But they occur outside the dust plume, thus could not be explosive charges used to bring down the buildings. They simply do not go off suspended in space long after the signal was sent to detonate. More likely glass or aluminum cladding spinning in the slip stream. Video is not fake. The analyst is just dumb as a box of gravel.

sleahead

16th November 2007, 02:59 AM

Definitely fake. Watch closely to the left of the tower, some of the "flashes" appear in the sky.

ETA: Also, flashes continue to occur in the cloud after the collapse front has passed. How'd they get those explosives to stay up in the air like that? That NWO is CLEVER!

Actually, I don't thnk this is a fake. I think it is merely sunlight reflecting off material tumbling from the building.

cyclonic

16th November 2007, 03:09 AM

thanks guys!

Dr Adequate

16th November 2007, 05:07 AM

Bodyguard Of Lies

--- Oh, the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies,

it's a Truthful Truth that Truthful men think wise:
that Truthful statements must be guarded
by falsehoods that are quite retarded
--- the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies!
In case you find the going tough
you'll send in squads of made-up stuff
(it's losing the advantage of surprise)

--- for the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies,

each one feeble, as I think that you'll surmise;
when your opponents blow them flat
you'll shift your ground ... you're good at that
--- the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies!
You hope it causes awe and shock
when paratroops of poppycock
come parachuting down from out the skies

--- for the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies,

each one blatant (there's some things you can't disguise).
You find your fibs are much too large
convincingly to camouflage
--- the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies!
Your stick, I'd think, might best defend
the Truth, held by the other end:
that's not the kind of stratagem you prize

--- for the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies:

it's a Truthful Truth that's True in Truthful eyes
that statements that aren't sensible
defend the indefensible
--- the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies!
and though you see each doomed division
get slaughtered ... with extreme precision ...
that's just the sort of tactic you despise

--- for the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies,

as absurd as you can possibly devise.
though vanquished, still they won't retreat.
Why not, my friend? They've shot their feet
--- the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies!
Though your legionnaires of lying
all are shot stone dead or dying
still you urge your cohorts on ... to their demise

--- for the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies!

BenBurch

16th November 2007, 05:15 AM

So now using a picture from a published magazine qualifies as fake evidence by Truthers??? Wow, you really are reaching. At least you had the courage to point that out to fellow debunkers.

The types of lies;

DISTORTION- saying something that could mean wo or more things
OMMISSION- intentionally concealing information
FALSIFICATION- giving false information
QUANTITY- altering the amount of information that should be given
QUALITY- altering the veracity of the information
RELEVENCE- changing the importance of the information
CLARITY- not giving clear information

and the use of that enhanced photo when the reality was indeed known to those using it is Omission and Distortion. Though you "Truthers" commit every single one of those.

Dave Rogers

16th November 2007, 05:58 AM

The types of lies;

[...]

and the use of that enhanced photo when the reality was indeed known to those using it is Omission and Distortion. Though you "Truthers" commit every single one of those.

Hmmmm.... Lies, Omissions and Distortions. Didn't somebody use that as a tagline?

Dave

cyclonic

16th November 2007, 08:12 AM

Truther comedy or propaganda?
WAIT A SEC.....CARTOON PHYSICS EXPLAINS 9/11!
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=mTqwXb98giY

Mercutio

17th November 2007, 07:17 AM

Bodyguard Of Lies

--- Oh, the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies,
[snip]

Do you have a tune for this? I imagine it as being sung to entertain the troops before they hit the trenches, WWI, in a dusty tent, to the sound of distant air-raid sirens.

Bell

17th November 2007, 07:35 AM

Bell

17th November 2007, 08:03 AM

Do you have a tune for this? I imagine it as being sung to entertain the troops before they hit the trenches, WWI, in a dusty tent, to the sound of distant air-raid sirens.

Mercutio, I think you are mixing up the two versions of the World War. Air raid sirens were not used in WWI, but in the sequel, WWII.

jhunter1163

17th November 2007, 10:45 AM

Bodyguard Of Lies

--- Oh, the Truth must have a bodyguard of lies... <snip>

To me, it kinda scans like "The Raven".

WilliamSeger

17th November 2007, 10:38 PM

Here's one from Webfairy (although she coyly posted it asking if it was fake or real): The video with Flight 175 edited out so there's just a plane-shaped explosion.

qcuOapEyp1o

Shrinker

18th November 2007, 05:14 AM

Here's one from Webfairy (although she coyly posted it asking if it was fake or real): The video with Flight 175 edited out so there's just a plane-shaped explosion.

qcuOapEyp1o

And the 'CGI/hologram' version... :rolleyes:

4q5nE-k0tUQ

What a bunch of losers.

PhantomWolf

18th November 2007, 08:13 PM

Actually, I don't thnk this is a fake. I think it is merely sunlight reflecting off material tumbling from the building.

If it's the video I think it is (showing the South tower collapse) then it was determined that they were most likely pieces of paper from the North Tower.

dbalsdon

13th January 2008, 03:19 PM

Sorry for bumping an old thread.

Just had to ask. Has there been a decent explanation for the flashes before one of the planes hit the tower? Are they fake, or (as someone in this thread mentioned) light reflecting off of debris?

Gravy

13th January 2008, 03:28 PM

The flash doesn't occur before flight 175 hits the south tower. Poor video resolution merely makes it appear that way.

cludgie

13th January 2008, 03:30 PM

As for faked video, was it 'September Clues' that'd made alterations to the second WTC impact video to make it look like the plane didn't have wings?

dbalsdon

13th January 2008, 03:38 PM

Thanks.

Tweeter

13th January 2008, 10:40 PM

As for faked video, was it 'September Clues' that'd made alterations to the second WTC impact video to make it look like the plane didn't have wings?

There were no wings cuz there was no plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLPeuJ4ni8U

This is an important video if you know how to watch it.
Explains the" flashes". GHM

ref

13th January 2008, 11:16 PM

As for faked video, was it 'September Clues' that'd made alterations to the second WTC impact video to make it look like the plane didn't have wings?

I haven't seen September Clues. But some real poor resolution YouTube videos actually do make it look like some parts of the wings are missing for a short while. That is of course not true, and is due to the reflections of light accompanied with poor resolution and speed of the aircraft.

BenBurch

14th January 2008, 12:20 AM

There were no wings cuz there was no plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLPeuJ4ni8U

This is an important video if you know how to watch it.
Explains the" flashes". GHM

Ummmm... Son, have you considered that is ridiculous on its face?

Real people saw both aircraft.

There is good, high-quality video of both strikes with aircraft with wings.

Corsair 115

14th January 2008, 12:23 AM

There is good, high-quality video of both strikes with aircraft with wings.And video taken from different angles and different positions & distances on different cameras. Then there's all the still photos as well.

leftysergeant

14th January 2008, 02:07 AM

The camera shake on the no-plane shot was probably used to mask the editing-out of the aircraft. Doen't this video exist somewhere in its unaltered form?

dbalsdon

14th January 2008, 02:47 AM

This is an important video if you know how to watch it.

So that's where we've been going wrong. We're watching the videos all wrong.

BenBurch

14th January 2008, 04:02 AM

The camera shake on the no-plane shot was probably used to mask the editing-out of the aircraft. Doen't this video exist somewhere in its unaltered form?

Does it matter? One anomalous video cannot stand against the many we do have;

CH6BIVw4kyE

beachnut

14th January 2008, 12:59 PM

There were no wings cuz there was no plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLPeuJ4ni8U

This is an important video if you know how to watch it.
Explains the" flashes". GHM
that video is so bad for resolution an more.

9/11 truth has to stop using a no plane theory, since real eyes saw the second impact. Just a another dumb idea in a long line.

GStan

14th January 2008, 01:34 PM

Does it matter? One anomalous video cannot stand against the many we do have;

CH6BIVw4kyE

nice try Ben, but your videos are all obvious fakes...tweeter's just HAS to be right!:boggled:

16.5

14th January 2008, 02:01 PM

There were no wings cuz there was no plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLPeuJ4ni8U

This is an important video if you know how to watch it.
Explains the" flashes". GHM

I agree! The guy who made it admitted it was fake.

And he also wrote this:

"video of no-plane hitting the world trade center.
i created this to show just how easy it is to fake a video.
many of the sept 11 videos were released days, or even years later
(the original for this one, was released YEARS after september 11 !)
This original
(called the Cheney hit video)
in my oipinion is a complete fake.
Remember, MANY of the videos you see about 9-11 have NOT been uthenticaed, and were either submitted by AnONAMOUSE people, or the people who submitted them work for the government, (or other suspicious releastion to GOV agencies etc..)
Such as one video released by SCOTT MEYERS who is a computer programmer for the NIST."

Man, some Twoofers are seriously dumber than a bag of hammers. Now, I gotta go ride out of town "ON A MOUSE"!

dudalb

14th January 2008, 02:26 PM

There were no wings cuz there was no plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLPeuJ4ni8U

This is an important video if you know how to watch it.
Explains the" flashes". GHM

God, a No Planer.
Even the Majority of Truthers consider the No Planers to be nutcases.

Tweeter

14th January 2008, 05:24 PM

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don`t.

Gravy

14th January 2008, 05:30 PM

There were no wings cuz there was no plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLPeuJ4ni8U

This is an important video if you know how to watch it.
Explains the" flashes". GHM
Another deeply troubled no-planer to put on ignore. How sad.

Tweeter

14th January 2008, 05:34 PM

I wasnt a no-planer till i slowed that video down frame by frame.
Try it. What do you see?

twinstead

14th January 2008, 05:35 PM

I wasnt a no-planer till i slowed that video down frame by frame.
Try it. What do you see?

Now that you've joined the elite ranks of the no planers, you have a lot of explaining to do. You can start with the THOUSANDS of eye witnesses.

Tweeter

14th January 2008, 05:42 PM

You mean like this guy. I`m sure he seen/heard the plane.
http://www.stage6.com/user/paulaob/video/1505201/World-Trade-Center-September-11-2001-Attack-3

Redtail

14th January 2008, 05:44 PM

I wasnt a no-planer till i slowed that video down frame by frame.
Try it. What do you see?

A person who faked video of no plane hitting the WTC.:p

twinstead

14th January 2008, 05:50 PM

You mean like this guy. I`m sure he seen/heard the plane.
http://www.stage6.com/user/paulaob/video/1505201/World-Trade-Center-September-11-2001-Attack-3

Let me get this straight. Out of the dozens of videos, and thousands of eye witnesses, pieces of airplane and DNA evidence, you post THIS single video? This is how you explain the overwhelming amount of evidence that not only suggests you are wrong, but pretty much to any rational person makes your theory look like rantings of a lunatic?

Are you KIDDING me?

Can you even verify the legitimacy of your little smoking gun video? Do you even care?

Tweeter

14th January 2008, 06:17 PM

Yup.

FactCheck

14th January 2008, 06:53 PM

My site is FILLED with truther lies. Were do I begin... Lets see...

One of the so called "scholars" keeps repeating the ridiculous claim that the hijackers are still alive and well. The absurd logic of this part of the conspiracy story is that the conspirators used the real name of phony hijackers. Think about that for a moment... These powerful mass murders can get away with planting tons of explosives/incendiaries, motivate hundreds, if not thousands of people to become accessories to mass murder but can't create phony names to throw off amateur internet investigators... OK, let's say your ability to think rationally about this is impaired and you need more than just simple common sense...

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

By now you may recognize the theme of these conspiracy stories. They obviously didn't bother to call the reporters involved in the article. And why should they? It sounds like a conspiracy just the way they tell it.

One of the BIG lies in the "truth" movement is that UL certifies steel. An ex-employee named Kevin Ryan, who worked as a water tester at UL, said "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." He says he knows this because UL certified steel components of the World Trade Center and that someone from the company who was connected with the UL testing told him this fact.

Now for some facts the "truth" movement doesn't tell you.

UL doesn't certify steel components like a steel truss or column. They certify assemblies. That means they certified the total assembly, all put together.

The other lie in the "truth" movement is the characterization of what the NIST said was the cause of the collapse.

1) The NIST NEVER said burning jet fuel was the cause of the collapse. Only that it was a factor

2) If the assembly stayed together, it only SUPPORTS the NIST hypothesis that the trusses pulled the columns in.

3) The UL test caused the test trusses to sag even with fireproofing

Since we are on the subject of fire proofing, let me touch on something which keeps being repeated by the so called "scholars". They keep suggesting that lease owner Larry Silverstein had a very good reason to blow up the towers.

Fetzer: My impression has been that there were a couple of problems with the towers and it may have been that they were chronic problems. One of course was that it was laden with asbestos and that any proposal to remove that asbestos which was used as a coating on the steel as I understand it would have been a gargantuan task at incredible expense. Can anyone imagine for example of constructing scaffolding around a 110 story building? And second of all that there were difficulties with occupancy that Larry Silverstein wasn’t getting a full return on his investment from the ordinary use of the buildings, because a tremendous large numbers of offices were unoccupied. Whole floors and sections of the buildings.

The fact is that asbestos in the towers was limited to floors only up to the 38th floor of WTC 1 and it was encapsulated. There was no asbestos in WTC2 .

"Several materials were considered for the sprayed thermal insulation. The exterior columns required insulation not only for fire protection but also to control column temperatures under service conditions. Alcoa recommended for the exterior columns the use of a sprayed material produced by U.S. Mineral Products, Co. known as BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. The same material was eventually selected for the floor trusses and core beams and columns. This product, however, contained asbestos fibers. On April 13, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating. A green dye was added to the encapsulating material so that the asbestos containing SFRM could be identified. Thermal protection of the remaining floors of WTC 1 and all of WTC 2 was carried out using BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F, a product that contained mineral wool (glassy fibers) in place of the crystalline asbestos fibers. On the basis of tests, it was reported that the thermal properties of BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F were equal to or "slightly better" than those of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D"

NIST NCSTAR 1-6A

So much for asbestos, now what about the occupancy...

May 31, 1998
As the market for office space in midtown has tightened and rental rates increased, tenants have been looking to downtown as a cheaper alternative. Over the last year, those seeking large blocks of space have been finding them at the trade center, which had many vacancies as a result of the 1993 terrorist bombing and the shrinkage of the financial industry in the early part of the decade.

''In January 1997 we had about an 80 percent occupancy rate,'' said Cherrie Nanninga, director of real estate for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the complex. Twenty percent of 10.5 million square feet of space is 2.1 million, which would be a substantial building by itself.

But as a result of the last year's work, Ms. Nanninga, said the complex is over 90 percent occupied and expects to it reach the 95 percent mark by the end of the year. That, she said, would be about as full as the center is likely to get, since there is almost always someone moving in or out. ''Ninety-seven percent occupancy would be full,'' said Ms. Nanninga, whose name is pronounced NAN-in-gay.

Downtown; At the World Trade Center, Things Are Looking Up

February 12, 2001

As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.

Today, only about 250,000 of the 10.4 million square feet of office space in the trade center remains vacant. And the legal center has an occupancy rate of over 99 percent.

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PressCenter/
PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=61

So much for the "difficulties with occupancy".

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Jones says something I can't help but find incredible...

"If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability."

The obvious question is how does he know what condition the floors were in to suggest they were flat enough not to pool aluminum near a heat source? I guess this is where we begin to forget again... We are to forget an airliner just rammed into the floors possibly bending/warping them. No? Don't like that? What about concrete, steel columns, steel sheets which held the concrete, airliner parts and office furniture which could have created a temporary dam? In fact, I think it's a "high probability" that the floors weren't in pristine shape after the impact of an airliner. In 5 years, Jones couldn't envision a sag in the floor enough to hold melted aluminum?

But what of Jones evidence for thermite like this?

"The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce."

Yet, once again, we find in his own paper that it states..

Under section 11
"Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000 ºC." (Eagar and Musso, 2001)

Steven Jones:

Actually, the metal-cutting device employing thermite is well known and documented; see the paper by Robert Moore published three months ago (January 2007) in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
Furthermore, there is a demonstration of a “device employing thermite” cutting through a metal rod, here.
Yet another absurd comparison from Jones. A small metal rod is NOT the same as a large column. See how large that canister is compared to that small metal rod? The canister in that video, while being enough to cut the vertical rod, will only cut a small hole into a vertical WTC column. (Something I said long ago. See bold text above) For the towers columns to have been cut by a similar device you would need much larger canisters wrapped around the buildings at this scale. Absurd!

I was going to copy stuff from this page but there was too much...

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

There is more here

http://www.jod911.com

16.5

14th January 2008, 07:35 PM

I wasnt a no-planer till i slowed that video down frame by frame.
Try it. What do you see?

A video that the guy who made it admitted was a fake? He said he faked it, right there on the same page.

Tweeter, you are a troll. A bad troll. Freaking worthless.

Cl1mh4224rd

14th January 2008, 08:01 PM

Tweeter, you are a troll. A bad troll. Freaking worthless.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

BenBurch

14th January 2008, 08:34 PM

Tweeter,

Welcome to my burgeoning ignore list...

-Ben

1337m4n

14th January 2008, 08:45 PM

Speaking of fake Truther evidence, what about Benjamin Chertoff's alleged family relationship to Michael Chertoff? If I recall, that was COMPLETELY made up.

Cl1mh4224rd

14th January 2008, 08:52 PM

Speaking of fake Truther evidence, what about Benjamin Chertoff's alleged family relationship to Michael Chertoff? If I recall, that was COMPLETELY made up.

Not completely. I forget exactly who, but some prominent truther (Bollyn?) tried to claim that they were cousins. Turns out they're apparently fourth cousins, I think, at best.

BenBurch

14th January 2008, 09:19 PM

I recall seeing somewhere that we are ALL at least seventh cousins.

defaultdotxbe

14th January 2008, 11:49 PM

I recall seeing somewhere that we are ALL at least seventh cousins.
i read that cheney and obama are 8th cousins

cludgie

15th January 2008, 05:23 AM

Similarly you have the Wirt Walker being related to GWB claims which again appear to be complete fiction.

CptColumbo

15th January 2008, 07:46 AM

Similarly you have the Wirt Walker being related to GWB claims which again appear to be complete fiction.
IIRC there was someone associated with the company who mentioned a familial relationship, but later admited she had no basis for such a statement. Of course, that's good enough for the CT crowd to believe it's true.

Tweeter

15th January 2008, 08:14 AM

A video that the guy who made it admitted was a fake? He said he faked it, right there on the same page.

Tweeter, you are a troll. A bad troll. Freaking worthless.

16.5 (IQ), can you read the thread title? It says fake truther
evidence!! I was adding to the *ding ding* fake truther evidence, until i watched the video in slow motion frame by frame. I`d really like to know how this guys done this.

16.5

15th January 2008, 08:39 AM

16.5 (IQ), can you read the thread title? It says fake truther
evidence!! I was adding to the *ding ding* fake truther evidence, until i watched the video in slow motion frame by frame. I`d really like to know how this guys done this.

Oh Burn! What an hilarious joke changing my name to add "IQ." In fourth grade, that was INDEED considered the height of wit. Kudos my good man, kudos to you! I shall share that joke with my 8 year old this evening, he'll enjoy it!

As far as the rest of your post. You said:

"I wasnt a no-planer till i slowed that video down frame by frame. Try it. What do you see?"

Now I certainly do not wish to suggest that you are changing your story; far from it! I can see how rather than expressly saying you found a fake video, that it was more effective to say you were a No-Planer!

You are the new doyenne of the Algonquin Round Table.

/"IQ." THAT is solid gold money.

BenBurch

15th January 2008, 11:40 AM

i read that cheney and obama are 8th cousins

Well, believable as Cheney is a Reptile... You'd have to go back a LONG time to find where he is related to any modern human being.

BenBurch

15th January 2008, 11:43 AM

Similarly you have the Wirt Walker being related to GWB claims which again appear to be complete fiction.

I maintain that GHWB is not related at all to GWB. Seems that the harridan that he calls mom was actually not living anywhere near GHWB when she became pregnant with him...

Jonnyclueless

15th January 2008, 11:47 AM

Just read anything Bollyn writes.

CHF

15th January 2008, 11:50 AM

Not completely. I forget exactly who, but some prominent truther (Bollyn?) tried to claim that they were cousins. Turns out they're apparently fourth cousins, I think, at best.

Chris Bollyn, a reporter for the far-right rag American Free Press, came up with that one.

No questions asked by the twoofers.

BenBurch

15th January 2008, 06:54 PM

Chris Bollyn, a reporter for the far-right rag American Free Press, came up with that one.

No questions asked by the twoofers.

And who used to run "Spotlight" which was a nakedly white-supremacist news rag.

JimBenArm

15th January 2008, 07:45 PM

I'm wondering, with the thread title and all:

Is there any other kind of truther evidence? Anyone seen any other kind, anywhere?

Justin39640

23rd July 2009, 07:49 AM

What about that one photo which supposedly showed the lower level explosions of dust when in fact it was the south tower collapse, they photoshopped a copy of the north tower to look like the south tower was still standing.

IIRC, even dyllion was fooled by that one.

lol i forget which video that was from but the guy narrating it was sitting on a video editing console?
they cropped the video and edited out the south tower falling and said the 40 something plume of dust was from an explosion not related to the tower

a truther actually sent me that garbage as "evidence" way back when
i sent him back the real video and thrashed him verbally
his response was he had dial up so he cant watch videos online (after several months of emails back and forth)
i thrashed him again for sending me "evidence" he never even watched

thats when i realized that these people just copy and paste from each others emails and do NO research (again this was years ago)
then they come online and tell everyone to do research ugh

TruthersLie

23rd July 2009, 10:32 AM

Aha, when Gravy said that the photo was on a Ground Zero fence for over a year, I thought, I bet it's in the Here is New York book, and lo! there it is on p. 451:

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1986/10267a2lm8.jpg

This is the original. The one posted above has a similar white balance but is wholly desaturated in parts and oversaturated in other places. The version used by Jones has a yellow tint absent from the original.

I noticed that NO ONE put up RKOwens4's excellent debunking of the LIE about this image. so here is the link to his video showing you where that picture came from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg

peteweaver

27th July 2009, 08:35 AM

That is ridiculous, it is you who are faking evidence here. Your "reality" verson is obviously pixelated with distorted colors.

Let me give you "debunkers" a little hint, unlike NIST et al., Mormon physics professors like Jones do not cook data.

Moronic former NUCLEAR Physics Professors who have no evidence FAKE it.
This video is of the same scene, its obvious that the glow was from an electric light, not molten metal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW1jsUXoRgs

And this, is an original pic of the scene.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_154904a6dbb259a5e7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17075)

Happy now Bofors ?

Justin39640

27th July 2009, 12:58 PM

I noticed that NO ONE put up RKOwens4's excellent debunking of the LIE about this image. so here is the link to his video showing you where that picture came from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg

nice find
portable halogen
jones is scum
i thought he was a religious man
i guess "though shall not lie" must only count when its not standing in the way of the "truth?"